The main order rejecting condonation of delay lacks reasons,...

The main order rejecting condonation of delay lacks reasons, violating principles of natural justice. It is a well-settled legal position that an affidavit-in-reply cannot supplement the main order under challenge by assigning reasons when the main order itself does not contain any reasons. The Supreme Court has emphasized the need for courts, quasi-judicial, or administrative authorities to provide reasons for their orders to enable higher forums or courts to consider such reasons when the order is challenged. The impugned order dated 12.06.2023, devoid of any reasoning, is liable to be quashed and set aside. Consequently, the matter is remanded back to the respondent to pass a fresh order with detailed reasons in accordance with the law.