Jurisdictional defect and non-consideration of contractual clause led to remand for fresh decision after hearing.

An impugned rejection of a claim was challenged for alleged lack of jurisdiction in the issuing authority and failure to consider the relevant contractual clause. With no objection from the respondent to fresh reconsideration, the Court set aside the rejection and directed the competent authority to re-examine the petitioner's representation after notice and hearing. The matter was remanded to the Chief General Manager, BUIDCo for a fresh decision in accordance with law, ensuring the petitioner an opportunity of being heard.

---

---

Issues: Whether the impugned rejection of the petitioner's claim could be sustained, and whether the matter should be remanded for fresh consideration by the competent authority.

Analysis: The rejection order was assailed on the grounds of lack of jurisdiction in the issuing authority and non-consideration of the relevant contractual clause. The respondent had no objection to the matter being reconsidered afresh by the competent authority. In these circumstances, the Court found it appropriate to set aside the impugned order and require reconsideration of the petitioner's representation after notice and hearing.

Conclusion: The impugned order was set aside and the matter was remanded to the Chief General Manager, BUIDCo for fresh decision in accordance with law after giving the petitioner an opportunity of hearing.

---