Mandatory communication of an adjudication order failed where service was sent to the wrong address, frustrating the appellate remedy.

Regulation 27 of the Adjudicating Authority (Procedure) Regulations, 2013 requires delivery of the confirming order in the prescribed manner, and that requirement was not met where the authority knew the affected party's director was in judicial custody yet sent the order to the residential address instead of the jail or counsel. No proof of email intimation or timely physical delivery was shown, so the communication was ineffective and the party was deprived of a meaningful opportunity to pursue the statutory appeal. The writ was disposed of with a direction to furnish the order to the petitioner or its counsel and to permit recourse to the appellate remedy, leaving the legal question open before the appellate forum.

---

---

Issues: Whether Regulation 27 of the Adjudicating Authority (Procedure) Regulations, 2013 was complied with in communicating the confirming order, and whether the petitioner was entitled to a copy of the order to enable an appeal.

Analysis: Regulation 27 requires delivery of a copy of the order on the date of pronouncement where the parties or their representatives are present. The record showed that the petitioner had informed the Adjudicating Authority that its director was in judicial custody, the show-cause notice had been served in jail, and the order was nevertheless sent to the residential address instead of to the jail or counsel. No proof of email intimation or timely physical delivery to the petitioner was produced. In these circumstances, the statutory mode of communication was not satisfied, and the petitioner was deprived of an effective opportunity to pursue the appellate remedy under the Act.

Conclusion: Regulation 27 was not complied with. The petitioner was entitled to be supplied the order and given time to avail the appellate remedy.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition was disposed of with a direction to furnish the confirming order to the petitioner or its counsel and to permit recourse to the statutory appeal thereafter, while leaving the legal question open before the appellate forum.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the authority is aware that the affected party is represented and that service at the residential address is ineffective, compliance with the prescribed mode of delivery of the order is mandatory for valid communication of the decision and for meaningful exercise of the appellate remedy.

---