Natural justice in remanded adjudication requires mutual disclosure of materials before a binding decision can stand.

Non-supply of each side's replies, written submissions and supporting documents in a remanded adjudication violated natural justice, because every participating party was entitled to know and meet the other side's material before a binding decision was made. The High Court held that this procedural defect vitiated the adjudication and could not be sustained. As the dispute depended on appreciation of rival factual materials, it was not fit for final resolution on affidavits in writ jurisdiction. The impugned orders were set aside and the matter remanded for de novo consideration with full disclosure of materials, opportunity to reply and personal hearing to all concerned parties.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the adjudication was vitiated because the replies, written submissions and documents furnished by the Kolkata Municipal Corporation were not supplied to the assessees, and vice versa, before final orders were passed. (ii) Whether the impugned orders required to be set aside and the matters remanded for fresh adjudication under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Issue (i): Whether the adjudication was vitiated because the replies, written submissions and documents furnished by the Kolkata Municipal Corporation were not supplied to the assessees, and vice versa, before final orders were passed.

Analysis: The earlier direction had required the Kolkata Municipal Corporation to be impleaded so that the adjudication would be effective and binding. For such adjudication, each participating party was entitled to know and meet the stand, replies and supporting materials of the other. The failure to furnish the Kolkata Municipal Corporation's submissions and documents to the assessees, and the reciprocal material to the Corporation, defeated the purpose of the remand and resulted in violation of natural justice.

Conclusion: The adjudication was vitiated and could not be sustained.

Issue (ii): Whether the impugned orders required to be set aside and the matters remanded for fresh adjudication under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: The controversy involved appreciation of factual materials and rival stands of the parties, which could not be finally resolved on affidavits in writ jurisdiction. A fresh adjudication was therefore necessary, with full exchange of materials, opportunity of reply and personal hearing to both sides, and a decision uninfluenced by the earlier orders.

Conclusion: The impugned orders were set aside and the matters were remanded for fresh decision.

Final Conclusion: The appeals succeeded, the adjudication orders were quashed, and the dispute was sent back for de novo consideration after full disclosure of materials and hearing to all concerned parties.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a remand is directed to secure an effective and binding adjudication among necessary parties, non-supply of the rival party's replies and supporting documents violates natural justice and warrants setting aside the adjudication for fresh consideration.

---