Natural justice and scheme uncertainty can require reconsideration where the deciding officer was not the hearing officer.

An adjudicatory order may be procedurally defective where the member who decides the matter was not the officer who heard the affected party, raising a breach of natural justice. The text also highlights uncertainty in applying the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 where lessees had made payments and the treatment of refund and appropriation remained unclear. In that setting, the matter required reconsideration on merits after clarification of how such payments should be handled under the scheme.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the impugned order, passed by a committee member who had not heard the petitioner, was vitiated for breach of natural justice. (ii) Whether the petitioner's declaration under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 could be considered afresh in light of the payment made by lessees and the uncertainty regarding refund and appropriation.

Issue (i): Whether the impugned order, passed by a committee member who had not heard the petitioner, was vitiated for breach of natural justice.

Analysis: The order under challenge was made by two officers, one of whom was not the officer before whom the petitioner was heard. The decision-making process was therefore not aligned with the requirement that the authority deciding the matter should be the one that heard the affected party. This rendered the order procedurally defective.

Conclusion: The issue is answered in favour of the petitioner. The impugned order was vitiated for breach of natural justice.

Issue (ii): Whether the petitioner's declaration under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 could be considered afresh in light of the payment made by lessees and the uncertainty regarding refund and appropriation.

Analysis: The Court found the Board's circular to be uncertain on how payments made by lessees were to be treated under the scheme, particularly if such payments were allowed to be appropriated against the declarant's liability while the lessees' challenge to the levy remained pending. The uncertainty on refund mechanics justified a fresh decision on merits after further clarification.

Conclusion: The issue is answered in favour of the petitioner to the extent that the matter required reconsideration. The impugned order was quashed and the case remitted for a fresh decision on merits.

Final Conclusion: The proceeding ultimately resulted in setting aside the impugned order and sending the matter back for reconsideration, with the petitioner obtaining procedural relief and a fresh adjudication opportunity.

Ratio Decidendi: An adjudicatory order is liable to be set aside where the deciding authority differs from the hearing authority and where the decision rests on an uncertain application of the scheme that requires clarification on consequential refund and appropriation issues.

---