Reasoned quasi-judicial orders are mandatory: non-speaking appellate order quashed and remanded for fresh consideration.

A quasi-judicial order must disclose reasons and deal with the grounds raised before it; mere repetition of the lower authority's view without findings on the factual or legal issues is unsustainable. The High Court held that failure to consider the material and record a speaking order amounted to non-application of mind and breach of natural justice, so the appellate order was quashed and the matter remanded for fresh decision after hearing the revisionist.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Tribunal's order rejecting the revisionist's appeal was unsustainable for want of reasons and non-consideration of the grounds raised, and whether the matter was liable to be remanded for fresh decision.

Analysis: The impugned order merely reiterated the view of the first appellate authority and did not record findings on the questions of fact or law raised in the appeal. A quasi-judicial authority is required to consider the material placed before it and to pass a reasoned and speaking order, since recording of reasons is an essential part of natural justice and ensures transparency, fairness, and meaningful appellate review. An order that does not disclose application of mind or address the grounds raised cannot be sustained.

Conclusion: The Tribunal's order was rightly held to be unsustainable and was quashed, and the matter was remanded for fresh consideration after affording hearing to the revisionist.

Final Conclusion: The revision succeeded, the impugned appellate order was set aside, and the dispute was sent back for a reasoned rehearing.

Ratio Decidendi: A quasi-judicial order must disclose reasons and deal with the grounds raised before it; failure to do so renders the order unsustainable and justifies remand for fresh decision.

---