An appellate authority must issue a reasoned order addressing the parties’ contentions.

The petitioner challenged the Sub-Divisional Officer’s order dated 19 September 2022 removing it from operating the Mid-Day Meal programme at an Education Guarantee Primary School and an Anganwadi Centre.

The Additional Collector dismissed the petitioner’s appeal on 1 February 2023.

The petitioner argued that the appellate order did not analyse its grounds or the parties’ rival submissions.

The State opposed the petition, maintaining that the order followed a hearing.

Whether the Additional Collector’s order dismissing the appeal was sustainable when it did not substantively address the parties’ submissions or give reasons for its conclusion.

Whether the matter should be remitted to the Additional Collector for a fresh decision after hearing the concerned parties.

In exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, the High Court required the appellate authority to decide the appeal through a reasoned and speaking order that addresses the relevant submissions and provides a basis for its conclusion.

The authority must also afford the concerned parties a proper opportunity of hearing.

The Additional Collector’s order largely reproduced the respondent’s submissions and concluded that the lower authority had conducted an inquiry and that no interference was warranted.

It did not discuss the petitioner’s grounds or provide findings explaining why the appeal failed.

The High Court therefore held the order unsustainable and directed reconsideration through a fresh, reasoned decision following a proper hearing.

The Additional Collector was directed to hear all concerned parties and pass a reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law within 90 days from the date both parties appear.

The parties were directed to appear on 12 October 2026, and the writ petition was disposed of.