Natural justice requires a proper hearing and consideration of written submissions before adjudication is finalised.

An adjudication order is unsustainable where the authority fails to deal with a party's request for a further personal hearing and signs the order without considering written submissions already on record. After an earlier remand, the appellants repeatedly sought clarification, adjournment, and another hearing date, but no effective hearing was granted and the submissions were not addressed. The order was therefore vitiated by breach of natural justice, set aside, and the matter remanded for de novo adjudication with a proper hearing and consideration of the written defence.

---

---

Issues: Whether the adjudication order was vitiated for breach of natural justice for want of a personal hearing and for non-consideration of written submissions filed before the order was signed.

Analysis: The matter had been remanded earlier for fresh adjudication. The record showed repeated requests by the appellants for clarification, adjournment, and a further hearing date after their written submissions. The adjudicating authority neither expressly accepted nor rejected the request for postponement beyond the stated hearing date, did not afford the requested personal hearing, and signed the order after the written submissions were already before him without dealing with them. In these circumstances, the procedural fairness requirement was not satisfied.

Conclusion: The adjudication order was held to be vitiated by breach of principles of natural justice and was set aside, with the matter remanded for de novo adjudication after giving the appellants a proper hearing and considering their written submissions.

Ratio Decidendi: An adjudication order is unsustainable where a party's request for personal hearing is not effectively dealt with and written submissions filed before the order is signed are not considered, as this constitutes breach of natural justice warranting remand.

---