Non-speaking adjudication orders cannot stand; lack of reasoning and evidence analysis justified remand for fresh decision.

An adjudication order that merely reproduces statements without discussing evidence or recording reasons is a non-speaking order and cannot stand. The authority must show application of mind and a clear basis for its conclusions; here, that requirement was absent, so the order was unsustainable. The matter was therefore set aside and remanded for fresh adjudication by the original authority, with the appellants to be given an opportunity to file a reply and be heard afresh.

---

---

Issues: Whether the adjudication order, which contained only verbatim extracts of statements and no discussion or analysis of evidence, was sustainable and whether the matter should be remanded for fresh adjudication.

Analysis: The order under challenge reproduced lengthy statements but did not contain any reasoning, evaluation of evidence, or analysis supporting the findings recorded against the appellants. An adjudication order is required to disclose application of mind and a clear basis for the conclusions reached. Since the order was non-speaking and lacked such analysis, it could not be sustained. In the circumstances, setting aside the order and directing a de novo decision by the original authority was warranted, with opportunity to the appellants to file reply and be heard afresh.

Conclusion: The impugned order was unsustainable and was set aside. The matter was remanded for fresh adjudication after due opportunity to the appellants.

Ratio Decidendi: An adjudication order that records conclusions without reasoned discussion or evaluation of evidence is a non-speaking order and cannot stand; such an order is liable to be set aside with remand for de novo decision.

---