Unreasoned administrative orders are unsustainable when objections are not addressed and reasons are absent; fresh hearing required.

An order that upholds impleadment and liability for further action under a show-cause notice without recording reasons is legally unsustainable because the basis for rejecting the objections cannot be verified. The High Court found that the Collector had not explained why the petitioner's objections were rejected, making it impossible to assess whether the issues had been properly considered. The unreasoned order was quashed, and the matter was remanded for fresh decision after hearing the petitioner and recording reasons.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Collector's order, which upheld the petitioner's impleadment and liability for further action under the show-cause notice without assigning reasons, was liable to be quashed and the matter remitted for fresh decision after hearing the petitioner.

Analysis: The impugned order contained no reasons supporting the conclusion reached by the Collector. In the absence of reasons, it could not be ascertained whether the petitioner's objections had been properly considered before the decision was made. Such an unreasoned order was treated as legally infirm and unsustainable. The appropriate course was to set aside the order and require the Collector to reconsider the objections afresh after affording an opportunity of hearing and recording reasons.

Conclusion: The unreasoned order was quashed and the matter was remanded to the Collector for fresh decision after hearing the petitioner and giving reasons.

---