Reasoned orders required for exemption claims; non-speaking rejection and appellate affirmation were set aside and remitted.

Orders refusing further exemption were set aside because both the original communication and the appellate affirmation were non-speaking and failed to address the material facts and submissions. The High Court noted that the committee did not identify the alleged similar decision it relied on and did not consider the petitioner's factual assertions, while the appellate order merely said the cited law was inapplicable. Orders affecting rights and liabilities must disclose reasons and application of mind; a cryptic disposal does not meet that standard. The matter was remitted for fresh consideration by a detailed speaking order, without any finding on the substantive entitlement claimed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the rejection of the petitioner's request for further exemption, and the appellate affirmation of that rejection, were sustainable when both orders were non-speaking and did not deal with the material facts or submissions.

Analysis: The impugned communication of the State Level Committee gave no particulars of the alleged similar decision relied upon and did not address the factual assertions made in support of the claim for additional exemption. The appellate order also failed to provide a proper consideration of the grounds and merely stated that the cited law was not applicable. Orders affecting rights and liabilities are required to be reasoned and to disclose application of mind; a cryptic disposal does not satisfy that standard. Since the controversy was not examined on merits, the Court declined to express any view on the substantive entitlement claimed by the petitioner.

Conclusion: The challenge to the non-speaking orders succeeded and both orders were set aside, with the matter remitted for fresh consideration by a detailed and speaking order.

---