Speaking order requirement in quasi-judicial appeals: rejection without reasons or retesting consideration was quashed and remitted.

An appellate authority's rejection of an appeal without considering a request for retesting of the third sample under clause 32A(2) of the Fertilizer Control Order, 1985, and without recording reasons, was held unsustainable. A quasi-judicial order affecting civil consequences must show application of mind and be a speaking order; a reasonless order cannot stand. The non-speaking appellate order was quashed, and the matter was remitted for fresh decision after considering the retesting request and granting an opportunity of hearing.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellate order rejecting the appeal without considering the request for retesting of the third sample and without recording reasons could be sustained.

Analysis: The petitioner had invoked clause 32A(2) of the Fertilizer Control Order, 1985 and specifically sought retesting of the third sample in a notified laboratory. The appellate authority rejected the appeal without dealing with that prayer and without assigning reasons. A quasi-judicial order is required to disclose application of mind and must be a speaking order, particularly where the order is amenable to challenge and affects civil consequences. An order that is bereft of reasons cannot be sustained.

Conclusion: The non-speaking appellate order was unsustainable and was quashed. The matter was remitted to the appellate authority for fresh decision after considering the prayer for retesting and after affording due opportunity of hearing.

---