Reasoned quasi-judicial orders are mandatory; a cryptic disposal without findings was set aside and remanded.

A quasi-judicial order affecting rights must contain reasons and disclose application of mind to the rival contentions. Where an order merely directs execution of documents and payment of rent, without examining the competing claims under an approved resolution plan or stating the factual and legal basis of the conclusion, it is not a speaking order and cannot be meaningfully reviewed for legality. The impugned order was therefore unsustainable and had to be set aside, with the matter remanded for a fresh decision by a reasoned order after hearing both sides.

---

---

Issues: Whether the impugned order, which disposed of the application without recording reasons or findings, could be sustained in law and whether the matter required remand for a reasoned decision.

Analysis: The operative part of the impugned order disclosed no substantive examination of the rival contentions and no discernible reasoning on the basis of facts or law. A quasi-judicial order affecting rights must reflect application of mind and must state the basis of the conclusion reached. A cryptic disposal that merely directs execution of documents and payment of rent, without addressing the competing claims under the approved resolution plan, does not satisfy the requirement of a speaking order. In the absence of reasons, appellate review becomes impossible and the order cannot be tested for legality.

Conclusion: The impugned order could not be sustained and the matter was required to be set aside and remanded for fresh decision by a reasoned order after hearing both sides.

---