The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of providing a fair and reasonable opportunity to be heard, especially when the party entrusts the matter to a legal professional. The court emphasized that the advocate's failure should not lead to the party suffering injustice.

V.V. Kamat, J.

1. As per the direction of this court 1989 (2) KLT 65 - Thampi v. Collector of Central Excise, by the reference order (Annexure N to this petition), the Appellate Tribunal has referred the following four questions which are required to be answered in this proceeding by us:-

"1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, is not the ex parte order under appeal liable to be set aside and the appellant given a fresh opportunity to file his written representation to the show cause notice, as the failure to submit the written representation in time was not due to any fault on the part of the appellant, but, if at all, was the result of the fault committed by his Counsel;

2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, is not the order under appeal bad for non-compliance with Rule 233A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 by which a duty is cast on the respondent to afford the person proceeded against, a reasonable opportunity of being heard, over and above the opportunity of making a representation in writing?

3. Whether, on a perusal of the order under appeal, can it be said that the respondent has complied with the provisions of Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 in as much as the respondent has ordered, the confiscation of the land, building, plant, machinery etc. used in the manufacture, storage etc.?

4. Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, is not the order under appeal incompetent and liable to be set aside for violation of the maxim nemo judex in re sua in as much as the adjudicating authority (respondent) was responsible for sanction order No. 3/86-87 dated 4-4-1986 distributing advance cash rewards to the various officers who participated in the detection/investigation of the case relating to . Vitco Rubber Industries, Kizhakkambalam and thereby prejudging the issues arising for adjudication?"

2. The answer to these questions requires to know the principles of natural justice in the context. The principles are founded on the bedrock of fairness and reasonableness. "Justice" implies consideration of the pros and cons of the problem under consideration. It necessitates what is known as "hearing" in the process. The postulate of adversary system of dispensation of justice presumes hearing the party seeking redress in the context. This hearing, if considered in terms of fairness and reasonableness enunciates basic and fundamental principle that as far as possible, depending on the facts and circumstances of the case under consideration, there has to be an end of solution on a context and this basic approach requires safeguarding of this aspect of hearing also in terms of fairness and reasonableness.

3. "Fairness and reasonableness" is recognised if certain requirements of adversary system are kept in mind because it is only as a result of hearing the person seeking redress that a fair and reasonable pathway could be understood and appreciated in the process of reaching the solution in record thereto.

4. The adversary system has also made it necessary to appreciate and understand participation of the members of the profession of law as representatives of the person seeking redress in the context. In this proceeding it will also be necessary to consider the place of importance of representatives in the process of hearing, again as a consequence of fairness and reasonableness.

5. With advantage certain observations of the referring judgment, as a floodlight to consider the question as a facet of the application of the principles of natural justice; it is observed that the concept of fairplay in action which is the basis of natural justice would have to depend upon the peculiar lis between the parties and in regard thereto rules and practices would have to be appreciated as constantly developing to ensure fairness in the making of decisions which affect persons in their daily lives and livelihood. When it is seen that the person seeking redress entrusted the matter