Gopal Krishan Vyas, J.—The petitioner registered firm approached respondent No. 2 under Sec. 45-IA of the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934 (hereinafter, ‘the Act’) claiming registration for non-banking financial institution. The said application has been rejected vide order of the respondent No. 2 dt. 31.05.2000 (Annex.-2 to the writ petition) by the competent authority holding that, “the applicant company has not informed the Bank within the said period about its fulfillment of the required amount of NOF. The applicant company has also not applied for extension of time to fulfill such requirement as contemplated under sub-section (3) of Section 45-IA. Therefore, it is clear that though, three years period was available to the company, the company has failed to comply with the requirement of sub-section (3) of Section 45-IA of the Act ibid. Hence, the applicant company is disqualified under Sec. 45-IA of the Act to carry on the business of non-banking financial institution for want of required NOF which would be the basic feature for fulfilling the requirements of sub-section (4) of Section 45IA of the Act. Under these circumstances, the Bank is satisfied that the applicant company has failed to comply with the requirements of sub-section (4) of Section 45IA of the Act.” 2. In the appeal preferred against the aforesaid rejection order, the appellate authority found that the company has not produced the evidence to controvert the contentions of RBI. The appeal was, therefore, dismissed for the reason that the appellant company failed to fulfill the statutory requirement of achieving NOF of Rs. 25 lakhs within the time frame stipulated by RBI. The order of dismissal of the appeal filed by the petitioner dt. 19.05.2004 is annexed to the writ petition as Annex.-6. 3. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the appellate authority did not consider the submissions advanced by the authorized representative of the petitioner company and passed the impugned order in a mechanical manner without dealing with any of the contentions and without application of mind. It is vehemently contended that the finding arrived at by the appellate authority that the petitioner company has not produced any evidence to controvert the contention of RBI is perverse. It is vehemently contended that the finding arrived at by the appellate authority that the petitioner company has not produced any evidence to controvert the contention of RBI is perverse. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is clear from the application and certificate of the chartered accountant that the petitioner company was already having required level of NOF (net owned fund) and, therefore, sub-section (3) of Section 45IA of the Act was not attracted and the petitioner was not under any obligation to inform the RBI about achieving the required NOF level. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the finding of the appellate authority that the company failed to fulfill statutory requirement within the time frame stipulated by RBI is clearly contrary to facts and law and, therefore, the order of the appellate authority deserves to be set-aside. 4. In the reply filed by the respondents, the allegations of the petitioner have been denied. It is stated that the orders impugned are perfectly legal and there is no error in the same. It is contended in the reply to the writ petition that all the papers have been considered by the appellate authority in its order. 5. I have carefully considered the submissions and also gone through the record. 6. It is obvious from the perusal of the impugned order that the appellate authority has not considered the submission of the petitioner company that since it has reached the required level of NOF it was not under obligation to inform the RBI under sub-section (3) of Section 45IA of the Act. It is evident from the record that alongwith the application documentary evidence was submitted by the petitioner company to make out its case for registration in consonance with the requirements of law, however, the appellate authority took the ground for dismissal of the appeal that the company did not lead evidence to controvert the contentions of the RBI. Since it is the case of the petitioner that the company had already achieved the required level of NOF and, thereafter applied for registration, the matter required to be considered in that perspective by the concerned authority and without assigning reasons based on law the appeal could not be dismissed by the appellant authority. Since it is the case of the petitioner that the company had already achieved the required level of NOF and, thereafter applied for registration, the matter required to be considered in that perspective by the concerned authority and without assigning reasons based on law the appeal could not be dismissed by the appellant authority. Consequently, the appellate order Annex.-6 requires to be quashed and the matter may be remanded to the appellate authority for consideration and decision of the appeal afresh after giving opportunity of hearing to the respective parties. 7. In this view of the matter, the order Annex.-6 dt. 19.05.2004 is quashed and the matter is remitted to the appellate authority with the direction to decide the same afresh while taking into account all the documents filed by the petitioner and, after providing opportunity to both sides, pass a speaking order so as to enable the parties to know what are the ground considered by the appellate authority. 8. With the aforesaid direction and order, the writ petition is disposed of. There shall, however, be no order as to costs. * * * * *