Non-speaking statutory order cannot be saved by later affidavit reasons; fresh speaking reconsideration was directed.

A statutory rejection order must stand or fall on the reasons recorded in the order itself; later explanations in a counter affidavit cannot cure a non-speaking order. The Madras HC found that the refusal to convert Advance Licence shipping bills into Drawback shipping bills merely invoked circular guidelines without disclosing the specific basis for non-compliance, and therefore lacked real reasoning. The order was unsustainable and was set aside, with the matter remitted for fresh consideration after personal hearing and for a speaking order on merits.

---

---

Issues: Whether the order rejecting conversion of Advance Licence shipping bills to Drawback shipping bills was liable to be set aside as a non-speaking order, and whether the reasons later supplied in the counter affidavit could cure the defect.

Analysis: The rejection order merely stated that the request had been considered under the circular guidelines and rejected for non-compliance, without setting out the specific reasons or the basis on which the conditions were said to be unsatisfied. The validity of a statutory order must be judged on the reasons recorded in the order itself, and those reasons cannot be improved upon by subsequent explanations in affidavit form. Since the impugned order disclosed no real reasoning, it could not be sustained.

Conclusion: The rejection order was unsustainable and was set aside. The matter was remitted for fresh consideration after personal hearing and for passing a speaking order on merits, in favour of the petitioner.

Final Conclusion: The challenge succeeded to the extent of quashing the non-speaking rejection and directing reconsideration of the request afresh.

Ratio Decidendi: The validity of a statutory order must stand or fall on the reasons stated in the order itself, and such reasons cannot be supplemented later by affidavit or other material.

---