Reasoned classification orders are mandatory; failure to address documentary material justified remand for fresh adjudication.

A classification order was unsustainable because it was non-speaking and did not disclose the reasoning for the conclusion reached. The original authority failed to properly deal with the leaflet and technical material relied upon, while the appellate authority decided the matter on additional material without remitting it for proper consideration. The adjudicatory process was therefore found inconsistent with the requirement that orders be reasoned and that deficient records be addressed through proper remand. The matter was remanded to the original authority for de novo adjudication after granting a personal hearing.

---

---

Issues: Whether the classification order could be sustained when the original and appellate authorities failed to give reasons, did not properly deal with the documentary material, and the matter therefore required remand for fresh adjudication.

Analysis: The order was found to be non-speaking because it did not disclose the reasoning for the classification conclusion. The original authority also failed to deal adequately with the leaflet and technical material relied upon, and the appellate authority proceeded to decide the matter on the basis of additional material without remitting the case. Such a course was held inconsistent with the requirement that adjudicatory orders must be reasoned and with the proper course where the record is deficient.

Conclusion: The impugned order could not be sustained and the matter had to be remanded to the original authority for de novo adjudication after granting a personal hearing.

---