No appeal lies against a non-existent order; interim relief applications must be decided by a speaking written order.

An appeal cannot be maintained against a non-existent or unwritten order, because an appeal must rest on a written impugned order supported by a certified copy or copy of that order; the appellate proceeding was therefore treated as non est and the entertaining order was set aside. An interim relief application is meant to secure protection pending final disposal, so the adjudicating authority should decide it separately by a speaking written order rather than defer it to final adjudication; the authority was directed to do so within a fortnight. The writ petition succeeded to that extent, with the appellate order quashed and fresh consideration ordered.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether an appeal could lie against a non-existent or unwritten order; (ii) whether the adjudicating authority was justified in declining to decide the interim relief application separately and postponing it to the final adjudication.

Issue (i): Whether an appeal could lie against a non-existent or unwritten order.

Analysis: The existence of a written order was treated as essential for filing an appeal, since an appeal must be supported by a certified copy or copy of the impugned order. In the absence of a written order, no appealable order was considered to exist in law.

Conclusion: The appeal before the appellate authority was held to be non est, and the order entertaining it was set aside, in favour of the petitioner.

Issue (ii): Whether the adjudicating authority was justified in declining to decide the interim relief application separately and postponing it to the final adjudication.

Analysis: The purpose of an interim relief application is to secure interim protection pending final disposal. Refusal to pass a speaking written order on such application was held to defeat that purpose and was found procedurally improper.

Conclusion: The adjudicating authority was directed to decide the interim relief application within a fortnight by passing a speaking written order, in favour of the petitioner.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition succeeded to the extent that the appellate order was quashed and a direction was issued for fresh consideration of the interim relief application by the adjudicating authority.

Ratio Decidendi: An appeal cannot be maintained against an order that is not shown to exist in written form, and an interim relief application must be decided by a speaking order rather than being deferred to final adjudication.

---