Natural justice breach and non-speaking order led to quashing; fresh personal hearing and reasoned adjudication were required.

The adjudication order was vulnerable for breach of natural justice because the hearing notice was received on the same date as the scheduled hearing, no earlier service was shown, and the reply dated 7 October 2024 was not considered before the order was passed. The absence of a meaningful opportunity of hearing, coupled with the order being non-speaking and unsupported by reasons, justified interference. The HC quashed and set aside the impugned order and directed fresh de novo adjudication after issuing a fresh personal hearing notice and passing a reasoned order.

---

---

Issues: Whether the impugned adjudication order was liable to be quashed for breach of natural justice and for being a non-speaking order, and whether fresh adjudication after proper personal hearing was required.

Analysis: The Petitioners received the hearing notice on the same date on which the hearing was fixed, and no material was produced to show earlier service. The reply dated 7 October 2024 was also not considered before the impugned order was passed. In these circumstances, the adjudication suffered from denial of a meaningful opportunity of hearing and from absence of reasons, which rendered the order vulnerable. The settled requirement that an affected party be heard before adverse action is taken was not complied with, and the matter therefore required reconsideration.

Conclusion: The impugned order was quashed and set aside, and the matter was directed to be heard afresh de novo after issuing a fresh personal hearing notice and passing a reasoned order.

---