Reliance on a review order led to fresh adjudication after the HC found doubt over the basis of the original orders.

Reliance on a review order created doubt about the basis of the impugned orders-in-original, and the HC held that procedural propriety required interference. The orders were set aside because the recorded consideration of the review order gave rise to suspicion as to whether the adjudication was properly founded. The matter was remitted for fresh adjudication in accordance with law, after following due procedure and after granting the petitioners an opportunity of hearing.

---

---

Issues: Whether the impugned orders-in-original were liable to be set aside and the matter remitted for fresh adjudication on account of suspicion regarding reliance on a review order.

Analysis: The impugned orders recorded consideration of a review order dated 04.05.2023, while the petitioners questioned the propriety of such reliance. In view of the resulting suspicion regarding the basis of the orders, the Court found it appropriate to interfere and require a fresh decision in accordance with law, after observing procedural formalities and propriety and after hearing the petitioners.

Conclusion: The impugned orders were set aside and the matter was remitted to the second respondent for fresh orders after affording the petitioners an opportunity of hearing.

---