Speaking orders in quasi-judicial adjudication must address evidence and reasons; inadequate orders may be remanded for fresh decision.

Quasi-judicial adjudication must disclose material, afford a hearing, and culminate in a reasoned speaking order that addresses the evidence and submissions. An order that fails to discuss the appellants' evidence or otherwise shows non-application of mind is legally inadequate. On that basis, the impugned order was set aside as regards the appellants, and the matter was remanded to the jurisdictional Commissioner for de novo adjudication with directions to pass a well-reasoned order after considering the evidence and, if requested, granting personal hearing.

---

---

Issues: Whether the impugned adjudication order was vitiated for want of reasons and non-application of mind, and whether the matter required remand for fresh adjudication.

Analysis: The adjudication process was held to require disclosure of material, opportunity of hearing, and a reasoned determination dealing with the evidence and submissions. The impugned order was found to be inadequate because it did not discuss the evidence relating to the appellants and did not contain a proper analysis supporting the conclusions reached. The Tribunal relied on the settled requirement that quasi-judicial authorities must pass speaking orders supported by reasons.

Conclusion: The impugned order was set aside insofar as it concerned the appellants, and the proceedings were remanded to the jurisdictional Commissioner for de novo adjudication with a direction to pass a well-reasoned order after considering the evidence and, if requested, granting personal hearing.

---