Reasoned quasi-judicial orders require consideration of actual submissions; incomplete adjudication justified remand for fresh decision.

A quasi-judicial authority must pass a speaking and reasoned order dealing with the submissions actually placed before it. Where the appellant did not effectively participate before the original authority and the contentions later relied on were not considered, the adjudication was incomplete on the issues now sought to be urged. Fresh consideration was therefore necessary in the interests of justice, and the impugned orders were set aside to the extent challenged with a direction for remand and fresh adjudication after reasonable opportunity of hearing.

---

---

Issues: Whether the impugned orders warranted remand for fresh adjudication where the appellant had not effectively participated before the original authority and certain submissions and decisions now relied upon had not been considered.

Analysis: The adjudicatory process must be based on the materials and contentions placed before the authority, and the authority cannot be faulted for not dealing with matters never brought to its notice. At the same time, a quasi-judicial authority is bound to pass a speaking and reasoned order dealing with the submissions actually placed before it. In the absence of effective participation, the adjudication was incomplete on the issues now sought to be urged, and a fresh consideration was necessary in the interests of justice.

Conclusion: The matter required remand and the impugned orders were set aside to the extent challenged, with directions for fresh adjudication after affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing.

Ratio Decidendi: A quasi-judicial order must be a speaking and reasoned order addressing the submissions placed before the authority, and where the original adjudication is incomplete because relevant contentions were not considered, remand for fresh decision is appropriate.

---