Explain procedural imporpriety as a ground for judicial review under English law?

Under English law, procedural impropriety, also known as a breach of natural justice, is a ground for judicial review, which is the process by which a court reviews the lawfulness of executive or administrative action. The principle of procedural impropriety holds that a public authority must follow fair and impartial procedures when making decisions that affect the rights and interests of individuals. There are two main aspects of procedural impropriety in the context of judicial review: the duty to give a fair hearing, and the duty to act with impartiality. The duty to give a fair hearing requires that a public authority must provide an opportunity for those affected by a decision to be heard and to make representations in advance of the decision being made. This includes the right to be informed of the allegations against them, to respond to those allegations, and to have their case considered on the basis of the evidence. The duty to act with impartiality requires that a public authority must be impartial in its decision-making and must avoid any appearance of bias. This means that the decision-maker must be impartial and must not have any personal interest in the outcome of the decision. A breach of natural justice or procedural impropriety can occur in a variety of ways, including failing to provide adequate notice of a hearing, failing to provide a proper opportunity to be heard, making decisions based on irrelevant considerations, or making decisions in a biased manner. If a court finds that a public authority has acted in breach of natural justice or procedural impropriety, it may declare the decision to be unlawful and quash the decision. It is important to note that the principle of procedural impropriety as a ground for judicial review applies only to public authorities, and not to private individuals or organizations. Additionally, the courts will generally only interfere with a decision if the breach of natural justice was material and had a significant impact on the outcome of the decision. It is important to note that the principle of legitimate expectation as a ground for judicial review applies only to public authorities, and not to private individuals or organizations. Additionally, the courts will only intervene if the representation made by the public authority was clear, unambiguous, and capable of giving rise to a legitimate expectation, and if the breach of that expectation was material and had a significant impact on the outcome of the decision.