Reasoned administrative orders are mandatory: unreasoned rejection of export-time extension request was quashed and remanded.

An administrative or quasi-judicial order affecting rights must record clear reasons in the order itself; a later affidavit cannot cure the defect. A non-speaking rejection of a request to extend export time beyond 90 days was therefore unsustainable because it did not disclose why the request was refused, defeating fairness, transparency, and effective judicial review. The unreasoned rejection was quashed and the matter remanded for a fresh reasoned decision in accordance with law.

---

---

Issues: Whether the order rejecting extension of time for export beyond 90 days, being unreasoned, was liable to be quashed and the matter remanded for a fresh reasoned decision.

Analysis: The impugned communication merely conveyed the rejection of the request without disclosing any reasons. An administrative or quasi-judicial decision affecting rights must record reasons so that the affected party knows why the request was and so that the order can be meaningfully tested on challenge. Reasons are an essential facet of fairness, transparency, and non-arbitrariness, and an affidavit cannot cure the defect in the original order by supplying reasons later. Since the challenged order contained no reasons, it could not be sustained.

Conclusion: The unreasoned rejection order was quashed and the matter was remanded to the respondent to pass a fresh order supported by detailed reasons in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: A quasi-judicial or administrative order affecting rights must itself disclose clear and explicit reasons, and a non-speaking order is unsustainable and liable to be quashed.

---