Lahiri, J.- In Assam registered Fisheries are generally sold by calling "public tenders". "Public servants" have been empowered to settle the fisheries with the aid and assistance of experts or members of the Advisory Board. The fisheries are really pub­lic properties held by the State but the beneficiaries are the public. In the matter of settlements, co-operative societies and/or the members of the listed classes have been granted pref­erential treatments under the mandates of Part IV of the Con­stitution. 2. A tiny fishery, the highest annual value offered stan­ding at Rs. 27.705/-, was put to sale for the period commen­cing from 26.9.80 to 31-3.83- The petitioner and respondent No. 3 filed tenders offering Rs. 27.505/- and Rs. 27,005/-respect-ively. The Sub-divisional Officer, the Settling Authority, accepted the highest tender of the petitioner whereupon he deposited Rs. 2.751/- as security and continued to deposit the kists from time to time. The fishery lease was executed by the Sub-divisional Officer in favour of the petitioner and the possession was taken over by the later, in the mentime Respondent No. 3 preferred an appeal before the learned Board of Revenue and the learned Board was unsure as to whether act 5 members constituted the Advisory Board or only 4. It conclu­ded that the settlement was violative of Rule 45 of "the Fishery Rules" which required "not less than 5 members and set aside the settlement and remitted the matter to "the primary autho­rity" with the following directions: "The learned S.D.C. may reconstitute the Advisory Board properly as provided under Rule 45 and make settlement to any suitable party from amongst the three tenderers or may even readvertise the fishery and resell it." 3. It is beyond question that the part of the order dire­cting re-adertisement of the fishery and re-sale was beyond the competence of the appellate authority on the facts and circumstances of the case. However, we are not at that. The main question that has been urged before us is that the learned Board of Revenue being the appellate authority constituted under the Assam Board of Revenue Act and the Regulation has failed to exercise its jurisdiction vested in it by law in overlooking that it had plenary power to settle the fishery even without remitting the matter back to the primary authority. 4. 4. It is not contested by the learned counsel for the par­ties that the appellate authority, namely, the learned Board of Revenue has co-extensive power with that of the settling authority. The meaning of the expressions co-extensive power and/or plenary power is no longer a res Integra. What the primary authority can do is within the width, contour and scope of the appellate authority. The only difference is that while the primary authority is to consider the tenders with the aid and assistance of the members of the Advisory Board, the learned Board of Revenue is free to decide the matter without any aid or assistance of any adviser. The crucial submission posed before us is that the learned Board of Revenue, while exercising its appellate power must look to the public interet as well as the interests of the tenderers while disposing of an appeal. In our opinion, in the absence of any prejudice to any of the parties, no proceeding should be elongated particularly the proceeding touching public need or public interest. The appellate authority has the undoubted power of remand. But when it should cry a halt and decide on merits instead of remanding the matter. We are of the opinion that it must balance the cause, the cases of the parties along with the vital question of public interest. 5. In the instant case there was absolutely no impediment in disposing the matter by the appellate authority on merits as all the materials were before it. What was the object or purpose of sending down the matter to the primary authority when the very same matter could have been heard by it and disposed of in accordance with law? If the matter is disposed by the appellate authority without rebounding to the primary authority, it can protect and spare unnecessary expenditure of the parties and also avoid consumption of time and energy of the parties as well as of the public servant i. e. the primary authority. The order of the Board is bound to lead to "imme­diate complicacy" if the settlement is set aside and the primarry authority is directed to reconsider the matter because during the interregnum confusion and chaos are bound to arise and the public interest would suffer. The purpose of conferring the co-extensive power on the Board is to enable it to enforce and protect "jus publicum". The purpose of conferring the co-extensive power on the Board is to enable it to enforce and protect "jus publicum". Further, the petitioner is the highest tenderer and is a co-operative society. The chance of the petitioner's getting the settlement was quite bright. In Swadeshi Cotton Mills, AIR 1981 SC 818 , of course in a different context, although the order was found to be void as no full, fair and effective hearing bad been given, no relief was granted. "The unstated consideration for such a course of action by the court appears to be that it would creat con­fusion and chaos if the undertaking is handed back to the owner and if the Government again passes an order of take over". (Vide Dr. S. N. Jain's Observations on the Effect of Failure of Natural Justice: The Ultimate Relief" in seminar of the I.L.I., at Pondicherry on "Administrative Law" in October 1981.) Similarly, no relief was granted in S. L. Kapoor, AIR 1981 SC 136 to avoid confusion, disorder or chaos. We are of the view that in cases of the present nature it is within the jurisdiction of the appellate authority to hear the appeal on merits and dispose it in accordance with law instead of sending it down to the authorities for fresh disposal to avoid public inconvenience and to uphold the cause of justice. The learned Board missed this aspect completely, and as such, fai­led to exercise a jurisdiction vested in it by law, which on the facts and the circumstances of the case it ought to have exercised. 6. In the result, we merely set aside the order of remand of the case to the primary authority. We remit the case to the learned Board of Revenue to hear and dispose of the appeal on merits within a month from today. The parties shall appear before the learned Board on the 16th day of December, 1981 for taking necessary orders from it. 7. In the result, the petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. There is no order as to costs. Send down the records forthwith.