Non-speaking rectification order set aside for failure to consider submissions and remanded for fresh adjudication

A rectification order was found unsustainable because it did not consider the petitioner's replies or the submissions made at the personal hearing, despite an earlier remand requiring fresh consideration. The court treated the omission as rendering the order non-speaking and procedurally defective. The order was therefore set aside, and the matter was remanded for de novo adjudication with a fresh reasoned decision after hearing both parties.

---

---

Issues: Whether the impugned rectification order was liable to be quashed for failure to consider the petitioner's submissions and whether the matter should be remanded for de novo consideration.

Analysis: The impugned order did not advert to the petitioner's replies or the submissions made at the personal hearing, despite the earlier remand directing a fresh consideration. In the circumstances, the order was found to be non-speaking and unsustainable. As the respondents fairly accepted that the matter could be sent back, the appropriate course was to set aside the order and require a fresh adjudication after hearing the parties.

Conclusion: The impugned order was quashed and the proceedings were remanded for de novo consideration and a fresh reasoned order in accordance with law after hearing the parties.

---