Proper opportunity of hearing was found sufficient where detailed notices were served repeatedly and the noticee remained absent.

Detailed show-cause notice and repeated hearing opportunities were provided, including service by post to the address and email furnished by the noticee. The notice contained sufficient particulars to enable a reply, but the petitioner did not respond and remained absent despite multiple notices. In these circumstances, the Court found no basis to exercise writ discretion in favour of the petitioner and declined to interfere on the ground of alleged denial of hearing or defective service. The impugned proceedings were left undisturbed and the writ application was dismissed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the show-cause notice and adjudication order were liable to be quashed for alleged denial of a proper opportunity of hearing and inadequacy in service of hearing notices.

Analysis: The notice was found to be detailed and to contain the necessary particulars for reply. The hearing notices were sent both by post to the petitioner's address and by email to the address furnished by the petitioner. The petitioner did not avail the opportunities granted and remained absent despite several notices. The Court held that no case was made out for exercising writ discretion in favour of the petitioner, particularly in view of the petitioner's own laches.

Conclusion: The challenge failed and the application was not entertained on merits in favour of the petitioner.

Final Conclusion: The impugned proceedings were left undisturbed and the writ application stood dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where detailed notices and repeated opportunities of hearing are provided, including by the modes furnished by the noticee, writ relief will ordinarily not be granted to a party who fails to respond and remains absent without justification.

---