Natural justice requires a hearing before rejecting delay condonation applications; fresh adjudication was ordered on merits.

Delay applications cannot be rejected finally without affording the applicant a hearing where the explanation for delay must be examined for sufficiency. The High Court held that a finding on whether the explanation is false or whether sufficient cause exists can be recorded only after hearing the party, as otherwise natural justice is breached. The impugned order was therefore quashed and set aside, and the delay applications were remitted for fresh decision on merits after hearing the petitioners.

---

---

Issues: Whether the impugned order rejecting the delay applications could be sustained when passed without hearing the petitioners, and whether the applications required reconsideration on merits.

Analysis: The petitioners complained of a breach of natural justice inasmuch as the delay applications were decided without affording an opportunity of hearing. The Court held that where delay is sought to be condoned, the explanation offered must be considered, and a finding on whether the explanation is false or whether sufficient cause exists can properly be recorded only after hearing the party. On the facts, the order had not been considered in the proper spirit and could not stand.

Conclusion: The impugned order was quashed and set aside, and the applications were directed to be decided afresh on merits after giving the petitioners an opportunity of hearing.

Final Conclusion: The petitions succeeded, and the matter was remitted for fresh adjudication of the delay applications after hearing the petitioners.

Ratio Decidendi: A delay application cannot be finally rejected without affording the applicant a hearing where the explanation for delay is required to be examined for sufficiency.

---