Speaking order requirement: unreasoned refusal of duty credit scrips was quashed and reconsideration directed.

An order passed in compliance with a judicial direction must be a speaking order and disclose the reasoning for the conclusion reached. Here, the authority merely reproduced policy clauses, a relied-upon clarification and the earlier judgment, but did not address the petitioner's submissions or explain the refusal of duty credit scrips. As the order showed no application of mind to the objections raised, it failed to satisfy the requirement of reasoned decision-making and could not amount to compliance with the earlier direction. The impugned order was quashed, and a fresh speaking order was directed after considering the petitioner's submissions, including the objections on the cited precedents.

---

---

Issues: Whether the impugned order, which merely reproduced the policy provisions and earlier directions without giving reasons, complied with the earlier judicial direction requiring a speaking order; and whether such order was liable to be quashed with a further direction to pass a fresh speaking order.

Analysis: The order under challenge did not address the petitioner's submissions or explain why the duty credit scrips were refused. It only quoted the relevant Foreign Trade Policy clauses, a clarification relied upon by the authority, and the earlier judgment. An order passed pursuant to a judicial direction to render a speaking decision must disclose the rationale for the conclusion reached. Since the impugned order contained no reasoning and no application of mind to the petitioner's objections, it did not satisfy the requirement of a speaking order and could not be treated as compliance with the earlier direction.

Conclusion: The impugned order was quashed, and the respondents were directed to pass a fresh speaking order within the stipulated time after considering the petitioner's submissions, including the objections regarding the applicability of the cited precedents.

---