Reasoned orders are mandatory in exemption refusals; non-speaking rejection under ICDR Regulations was set aside and remanded.

Rejection of an exemption request under the ICDR Regulations without recorded reasons was held unsustainable because an adverse order affecting rights must disclose reasons to enable effective appellate challenge. The SAT found that a non-speaking rejection could not stand, set aside the impugned order, and remanded the matter to the Board for prompt reconsideration through a speaking order.

---

---

Issues: Whether the rejection of the request for exemption under the ICDR Regulations, without a speaking order, warranted interference and remand.

Analysis: The request for exemption was rejected by the Board without recording reasons. Where an adverse order affects the rights of a party, reasons must be furnished so that the affected party can effectively pursue appellate remedies. A non-speaking rejection is therefore unsustainable.

Conclusion: The impugned rejection was set aside and the matter was remanded to the Board for passing a speaking order expeditiously.

---