Reasoned quasi-judicial orders required; non-speaking appellate order set aside and matter remanded for fresh decision.

A quasi-judicial order affecting rights must disclose reasons and application of mind; a non-speaking order is vulnerable because it prevents fairness to the parties and effective judicial review. The appellate authority's order was found unsustainable because it gave no reasons, did not address the rival contentions, and omitted consideration of the limitation objection. The order was therefore set aside and the matter remanded to the appellate authority for fresh consideration in accordance with law after hearing both sides.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellate authority's order permitting a secured creditor to proceed with a civil suit was liable to be set aside as a non-speaking order and the appeal remanded for fresh decision.

Analysis: The challenge succeeded on the ground that the impugned order contained no reasons and did not deal with the rival contentions, including the objection as to limitation. The governing principle applied was that a quasi-judicial or administrative order affecting rights must disclose application of mind and record reasons, since reasons are necessary both for fairness to the parties and for effective judicial review. An order bereft of reasons is vulnerable on that ground alone.

Conclusion: The impugned order was unsustainable and was set aside. The appeal was remanded to the appellate authority for fresh consideration in accordance with law after giving both sides an opportunity of hearing.

Ratio Decidendi: A quasi-judicial order affecting rights must be a reasoned order disclosing application of mind; a non-speaking order is liable to be set aside and remanded for fresh decision.

---