Natural justice and speaking orders require meaningful hearing; revision order quashed and remitted for fresh consideration.

An impugned revision order was set aside because it was passed after long delay and did not show meaningful consideration of the dealer's objections. The High Court noted that the order largely reproduced the reply, gave only a cursory reference to personal hearing, and failed to comply with earlier directions requiring a speaking order after hearing the petitioner. For want of fair procedure, adequate reasons, and proper observance of natural justice, the order was held unsustainable. The matter was remitted for fresh consideration and a speaking order on merits in accordance with law.

---

---

Issues: Whether the impugned revision order, passed after a long delay and without proper observance of natural justice, was liable to be quashed and the matter remitted for fresh consideration.

Analysis: The impugned order was found to be substantially a reproduction of the dealer's reply, with only a cursory reference to personal hearing and a brief conclusion. The order did not reflect a meaningful consideration of the petitioner's objections and was passed in the backdrop of earlier directions to decide the matter by a speaking order after hearing the petitioner. In these circumstances, the Court held that the order was unsustainable for want of fair procedure and adequate reasons.

Conclusion: The impugned order was quashed and the matter was remitted to the respondent to pass a speaking order on merits in accordance with law after following the principles of natural justice.

---