Reasoned appellate order required: Tribunal's concurrence without independent analysis violated natural justice and was set aside.

A quasi-judicial appellate authority must decide the grounds raised by recording its own reasons and showing application of mind; a mere concurrence with the first appellate authority does not satisfy the requirement of a speaking order. Reasons are an essential facet of natural justice and enable meaningful appellate scrutiny. The Tribunal's non-speaking order was therefore unsustainable, the impugned order was set aside, and the matter was remanded for fresh decision by a reasoned order after hearing the parties.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Tribunal's order, which merely concurred with the first appellate authority without independently dealing with the grounds raised, could be sustained.

Analysis: The Tribunal was required to record its own reasons and show application of mind while deciding the second appeal. A judicial or quasi-judicial order must disclose reasons, even if brief, because reasons are an essential facet of natural justice and make appellate scrutiny meaningful. Mere reproduction or endorsement of the lower authority's findings, without consideration of the appellant's grounds, renders the order unsustainable.

Conclusion: The Tribunal's non-speaking order could not be sustained and was liable to be set aside.

Final Conclusion: The revision succeeded, the impugned order was set aside, and the matter was remanded to the Tribunal for fresh decision by a reasoned and speaking order after hearing the parties.

Ratio Decidendi: A quasi-judicial appellate authority must pass an independent, reasoned order showing application of mind to the grounds raised; absence of reasons violates natural justice and vitiates the decision.

---