Reasoned appellate orders are mandatory; the High Court set aside a non-speaking order and ordered rehearing.

A quasi-judicial appellate order affecting rights must disclose reasons, so the basis of the conclusion can be tested and reviewed. A non-speaking order, particularly one issuing substantive directions under the statutory scheme without showing application of mind to relevant considerations, is vulnerable and cannot be sustained. Applying that principle, the High Court set aside the impugned appellate order for want of reasons and remitted the matter to the Appellate Authority for rehearing, without examining the merits of the rival claims.

---

---

Issues: Whether the impugned order of the Appellate Authority was liable to be set aside for want of reasons and the matter remanded for fresh hearing.

Analysis: A decision affecting rights must disclose reasons so that the basis of the conclusion is known, the discretion exercised can be tested, and appellate or supervisory review is possible. A non-speaking order, especially one substituting substantive directions under the statutory scheme, is vulnerable because it does not show application of mind to relevant considerations. The Court therefore examined the order only on the touchstone of its lack of reasons and did not go into the merits of the rival claims.

Conclusion: The impugned order could not be sustained and was set aside. The matter was remitted to the Appellate Authority for rehearing.

Final Conclusion: The petitioner succeeded on the ground of absence of reasons in the impugned appellate order, and the dispute was sent back for reconsideration afresh.

Ratio Decidendi: A quasi-judicial or appellate order affecting rights must be a reasoned order; where reasons are absent, the order is liable to be set aside and remitted for fresh decision.

---