Remand allows the original authority to re-adjudicate remitted issues and consider subsequent materials submitted by a party.

Remand by the writ court required fresh consideration of specific allegations and left substantive issues open for re-evaluation; accordingly the original authority retains jurisdiction to re-adjudicate the remitted disputes and to reassess jurisdictional and factual questions in light of documents or communications submitted during the writ appeal's pendency. Subsequent events or assertions of compliance do not automatically oust the authority's power to revisit the matters; affected parties may place relevant materials before the authority for fresh determination.

---

---

Issues: Whether, in view of subsequent events during pendency of the writ appeal, the original authority is deprived of jurisdiction to re-adjudicate the disputes remitted by the Writ Court.

Analysis: The writ court set aside the impugned notice and remitted the matter for fresh consideration on specific allegations requiring re-adjudication. Subsequent communications by the appellant asserting fulfillment of obligations under the agreement were available for submission to the authority. The remand left substantive issues open for fresh evaluation of documents and evidence, enabling the authority to examine jurisdictional and factual questions afresh and pass appropriate orders.

Conclusion: The original authority continues to retain power to re-adjudicate the remitted issues notwithstanding events occurring during pendency of the writ appeal; the appellant may place relevant materials before the authority for consideration.

---