Review Petition Maintainable Where Judgment Pronounced in Absence of Parties Violates Principles of Natural Justice

The Original Application (O.A. No. 505/2020) was heard as "part-heard" on 03.07.2025 and, after several adjournments, was finally decided on 12.09.2025

The Review Applicant (ITDC) claimed they were unaware of the disposal until 24.11.2025 and subsequently filed this Review Application (R.A.) along with a Miscellaneous Application (M.A. No. 5493/2025) for a 60-day condonation of delay

The applicant contended that their absence on the date of judgment prevented them from bringing crucial facts to the Tribunal's notice

The respondent opposed the R.A., arguing that review is only permissible for errors apparent on the face of the record and noting that the Tribunal had already considered the respondent's written submissions

1. Whether the delay of 60 days in filing the Review Application should be condoned

2. Whether the absence of a party during the final adjudication justifies a review under the principles of natural justice (audi alteram partem)

The Tribunal primarily applied the principle of audi alteram partem (hear the other side), which is a fundamental pillar of natural justice

It recognized that as a quasi-judicial body, effective adjudication requires both parties to be heard to ensure all crucial factors are incorporated into the judgment and to prevent the omission of vital facts

The court also considered the settled law regarding review jurisdiction, which generally requires an "error apparent on the face of the record"

The Tribunal reasoned that despite the existence of written submissions on record, the physical absence of the Review Applicant on the date of judgment (12.09.2025) may have led to the omission of crucial factors necessary for effective adjudication

The Member (A) emphasized that the spirit of a quasi-judicial forum is founded on ensuring that contending parties have a fair opportunity to oralize arguments that might influence the final incorporation of facts in a judgment

By prioritizing the principles of natural justice over technical finality, the Tribunal determined that allowing the review would prevent potential prejudice caused by the applicants' inability to present arguments in person

The Tribunal allowed M.A. No. 5493/2025 for condonation of delay and allowed the Review Application (R.A. No. 191/2025). Consequently, the Registry was directed to restore the Original Application (O.A. No. 505/2020) and list it for a fresh hearing on 28.07.2026