Reasoned quasi-judicial orders are essential: cancellation of registration set aside for non-speaking findings and lack of hearing.

Cancellation of registration was held unsustainable where the order gave inconsistent treatment to the reply, lacked meaningful reasons, and showed non-application of mind. The appellate order did not cure these defects. The court reiterated that an adverse quasi-judicial order affecting business rights must disclose reasons and reflect fair consideration to satisfy Article 14. Because the original order was non-speaking and the petitioner had not received a proper opportunity to contest the notice, the matter was remitted for fresh adjudication after consideration of the reply and hearing the petitioner.

---

---

Issues: Whether the cancellation of registration order and the appellate order were liable to be quashed for lack of reasons and non-application of mind, and whether the matter should be remitted for fresh adjudication after hearing the petitioner.

Analysis: The cancellation order recorded inconsistent treatment of the reply to the show-cause notice and did not disclose any meaningful reasoning for the drastic action of cancellation. The appellate order also did not cure the defect. An adverse quasi-judicial order affecting business rights must reflect application of mind and reasons so that the decision satisfies the requirements of fairness and Article 14. Where the original order is non-speaking and the petitioner has not been afforded a proper opportunity to contest the notice, the appropriate course is to set aside the orders and require fresh consideration by the adjudicating authority.

Conclusion: The cancellation order and the appellate order were quashed and set aside, and the matter was remitted for fresh decision after filing of reply and grant of opportunity of hearing.

---