Non-speaking revisional orders can be quashed and remanded when material factual contentions are not considered in writ jurisdiction.

A revisional authority must address the material factual contentions placed before it, including whether a proposed manufacturing unit qualifies as an industrial plant for project import benefit. If the revisional order is non-speaking and omits consideration of those issues, the High Court may quash it in writ jurisdiction and remit the matter for fresh decision. The Court should not itself undertake a merits determination or act as a substitute appellate forum when the authority has failed to examine the relevant facts. The operative result is limited interference to remove the defective order and send the matter back for reconsideration on merits.

---

---

Issues: Whether a revisional order that omitted to consider the material factual contentions of the petitioner could be sustained, and whether the proper course was quashing and remand rather than a merits determination in writ jurisdiction.

Analysis: The revisional authority was required to deal with the factual features placed before it on the question whether the proposed unit for manufacture of master tapes was an industrial plant eligible for the project import benefit. The order challenged before the Court did not examine or discuss those factual assertions. In such a situation, the Court would not assume the role of a revisional authority and decide the merits itself. The proper course was to interfere only to the extent necessary to remove the non-speaking order and send the matter back for fresh consideration.

Conclusion: The non-speaking revisional order was quashed and the matter was remitted to the revisional authority for fresh decision on merits.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a statutory appellate or revisional authority passes a non-speaking order without considering the material issues raised before it, the High Court in writ jurisdiction may quash that order and remit the matter for fresh consideration, but should not itself decide the merits as a substitute appellate forum.

---