The Court held that in order to contend that while Section 107 enables a person to prefer an appeal against any decision or order which are actually exclusive and independent of each other, a perusal of Section 121 of the said Act of 2017 will clearly indicate that except for the non-appealable decision and orders which are expressly described and enumerated in Section 121 ofsaid Act of 2017, all other orders and/or decisions passed by the authorities would be appealable under Section 107 of the said Act of 2017 and respondent No.1 having failed to consider this aspect of the matter, the impugned order deserves to be quashed. It is also submitted that no opportunity was granted in favour of the petitioner to urge all contentions including the contentions with regard to maintainability of the appeal qua Sections 107 and 121 of the said Act of 2017 and on this ground also, the impugned order at Annexure-A deserves to be quashed.

Though several contentions have been urged by both sides in support of their respective claims, a perusal of the impugned endorsement will indicate that respondent No.1 has not considered or appreciated the scope and ambit of Section 107 R/w. Section 121 of the said Act of 2017 and consequently, the impugned endorsement being unreasoned, non-speaking, arbitrary, cryptic and laconic, the same deserves to be quashed. So also, in view of the specific assertion on the part of the petitioner that no opportunity was granted to the petitioner to urge all their contentions before respondent No.1, by adopting a justice oriented approach and in order to provide one more opportunity to the petitioner to put forth all contentions in support of its claim, I deem it just and appropriate to set aside the impugned endorsement and remit the matter back to respondent No.1, the appellate authority for reconsideration afresh in accordance with law. The impugned endorsement dated 20.07.2022 issued by respondent No.1 is hereby quashed.