Quasi-judicial orders must reflect independent application of mind; a draft or mechanically prepared adjudication is invalid.

A quasi-judicial adjudication order is valid only if it reflects the authority's final decision and its own application of mind. Where the record shows the order body was written by more than one hand and the operative portion was separately inserted, serious doubt arises that the Collector actually completed the order himself. On those facts, the order was treated as unfinished and invalid, and the matter was remanded for de novo adjudication with consideration of all pleas raised by the appellant.

---

---

Issues: Whether the impugned adjudication order was a valid final order passed by the Collector, or merely a draft/unfinished order, warranting remand for de novo adjudication.

Analysis: The file and note-sheets showed that the body of the order had been written in longhand by more than one hand, with the operative portion added separately in red ink. The record also created serious doubt as to whether the Collector had himself drafted the full order or merely initialled material prepared by office staff. A quasi-judicial adjudication order must reflect the authority's own application of mind and cannot remain at a draft stage. In these circumstances, the order could not be treated as a valid completed adjudication.

Conclusion: The impugned order was held to be invalid, and the matter was remanded to the Collector for de novo adjudication, with consideration of all pleas raised by the appellant.

Ratio Decidendi: An adjudication order passed by a quasi-judicial authority is valid only when it is shown to be the authority's final decision embodying its own application of mind; a draft or mechanically prepared order cannot sustain the adjudication.

---