Natural justice bars reliance on undisclosed post-hearing material in quasi-judicial proceedings; the order was quashed.

A quasi-judicial authority cannot rely on adverse material obtained after the hearing without first supplying it to the affected party and inviting comments. The Bombay High Court noted that a post-hearing departmental clarification, used to justify reduction of import entitlement, was never disclosed to the petitioners. Because the decision-maker acted on material gathered behind the party's back, the affected party had no fair opportunity to meet or controvert it. That breach of natural justice, and consequently Article 14, vitiated the order, which was quashed and set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether the impugned order reducing the import entitlement was liable to be quashed for breach of the principles of natural justice on the ground that it was passed on adverse material obtained after the hearing without notice to the petitioners.

Analysis: The decisive material relied upon by the authority was a clarification obtained from another department after the personal hearing had concluded. That clarification was adverse to the petitioners and was used to support the final order, but it was never supplied to them or put to them for their comments. In a quasi-judicial proceeding, a decision-maker cannot act upon material gathered behind the back of the affected party after the hearing is over, because the party must have a fair opportunity to meet and controvert all material relied upon against it. The absence of such opportunity amounted to a violation of natural justice and, therefore, of Article 14.

Conclusion: The impugned order could not be sustained and was quashed and set aside.

Ratio Decidendi: An adverse material obtained after the hearing in a quasi-judicial proceeding cannot be relied upon without giving the affected party notice and an opportunity to respond; failure to do so vitiates the decision for breach of natural justice.

---