Substantial justice favours remand where opportunity was not effectively availed, with costs imposed for default in appearance.

The Tribunal's record showed that sufficient opportunities had been granted, but the order did not specify how many were actually afforded, so the court treated the issue as failure to avail hearing rather than complete denial of opportunity. In the interest of substantial justice, and because remand would not prejudice the State, the appeals were restored to the Tribunal for fresh adjudication. The petitioner's default in appearance was addressed by imposing costs as a condition attached to the remand.

---

---

Issues: Whether the matter should be remanded to the Tribunal for fresh consideration on account of the petitioner not having effectively availed the opportunity before the Tribunal.

Analysis: The Tribunal had recorded that sufficient opportunities were granted, but the order did not specify the number of opportunities afforded to the petitioner. The Court treated the matter as one where the opportunity was not availed rather than one of complete denial of hearing. In the interest of substantial justice, and since remand would not prejudice the State, the Court considered it appropriate to restore the appeals to the Tribunal for fresh adjudication. The petitioner's default in appearance was taken into account by directing payment of costs.

Conclusion: The matter was remanded to the Tribunal for fresh consideration, with costs imposed on the petitioner.

---