Revisional order must show reasons and statutory consideration; cryptic orders without analysis were remanded for fresh merits decision.

A revisional order that omits discussion of the material facts, applicable statutory provisions, and the parties' submissions is unsustainable because it lacks the reasoning necessary for judicial scrutiny. The Court found the impugned order cryptic and unsupported by cogent reasons, and held that a revisional authority must record consideration of the facts, governing law, rival contentions, and reasons for accepting or rejecting them. As the controversy could not be decided on merits in writ jurisdiction on such a deficient order, the matter was remanded for a fresh decision on merits after considering all questions raised by the petitioner.

---

---

Issues: Whether the revisionary order was sustainable when it contained no discussion of the relevant facts, legal provisions, or submissions and whether the matter required remand for fresh decision on merits.

Analysis: The revisionary authority did not examine the material facts, the applicable statutory provisions, or the contentions raised by the petitioner, and the order was found to be cryptic and unsupported by cogent reasoning. A revisional order is expected to disclose consideration of the facts, the governing legal provisions, the rival submissions, and the reasons for accepting or rejecting the conclusions so that the order can stand judicial scrutiny. In the absence of such reasoning, the Court could not sustain the order or adjudicate the controversy on merits in writ jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The revisionary order was held unsustainable and the matter was remanded for fresh decision on merits after considering all questions raised by the petitioner.

---