T.S. Mishra. C.J.:- This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking the quashing of the order dated 26th April. 1983, passed in appeal filed by B. K. Goswami, the present petiti­oner against the settlement of UDR (E B) Kherjan Mining lease area Plywood Coupe No. 9 of 1980-81 under Digboi Division. 2. The Divisional Forest Officer issued a notice for sale of plywood coupes of Digboi Division for 1981 and invited tenders from the intending persons under the provisions of the Assam Settlement of Forest Coupes and Mahals by Tender Sys­tem Rules, 1977. The petitioner as well as three other persons submitted their tenders. In paragraph 4 of the petition it is alleged that the petitioners bid was highest, whereas the bid of K. R. Barua was lower than him. The settlement was however made in favour of K. R Barua. The petitioner being aggrieved by the order of the Conservator of Forests preferred an appeal before the Government of Assam under Rule 9 of the Assam Settlement of Forest Coupes and Mahals by Tender System Rules, 1977. That appeal was heard and disposed of by an order dated 26th April, 1983, a copy of which is Annexure 'B' to the writ petition. The petitioner has, as pointed out earlier, impugned the said order dated 26th April, 1983, inter-alia, on the ground that the order was passed without application of mind and without stating any reasons. 3. The petition has been opposed. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the impugned order dated 26th April, 1983. It runs as follows: "Heard arguments of advocate on behalf of both the parties. Perused all records. The coupe is settled with Shri Kumud Ranjan Baruah, the second bidder. The stay order communicated vide Govt. Telegram No. FRS 639814 dt. 18.1.82 is hereby vacated. Sd/- B. N. Ojah 20.4.83 Deputy Secretary to the Govt. of Assam Forest Department." 4. We have quoted the above order with a view to point out that no reasons have been stated whatsoever for settling the coupe with Kumud Ranjan Baruah. It merely states that the arguments of Advocate for both the parties were heard and the records were perused and then it proceeds to pass the final order by saying that the coup is settled with Shri Kumud Ranjan Baruah, the second bidder. It merely states that the arguments of Advocate for both the parties were heard and the records were perused and then it proceeds to pass the final order by saying that the coup is settled with Shri Kumud Ranjan Baruah, the second bidder. What had led the appellate authority to the conclusion aforesaid is not at all disclosed. This is one of the glaring cases where the appellate authority without assigning any reason for its conclusion dismisses the appeal and passes the final order. In a proceeding of this nature taken before the appellate authority, it was necessary for it to support its final order by reasons so that if the same are subjected to further judicial scrutiny and review the Court may be in a position to know as to what were the reasons which led the authority concerned to pass a particular order. In the absence of any reasons what­soever it is difficult to know with certainty as to how that order came to be passed. That apart, the original settlement order which was impugned before the appellate authority, is not before us. We do not know as to in what circumstances and on what grounds the coup was settled with Shri Kumud Ranjan Baruah, who was the second bidder and why the bid of the petitioner which was obviously the highest was not accepted. It has been said in the affidavit-in-opposition that the petitioner was an employee of the Indian Oil Corporation and hence he was not entitled to submit the tender and to carry on any other profession or busi­ness other than the work for which he was engaged by the Indian Oil Corporation and that his bid was therefore not accepted on that ground. This fact has been alleged in the affidavit-in-opposition, but does not find mention in the impugned order dated 26th April, 1983. It is, therefore, difficult to accept the contention that the said order was passed on the ground now stated in the affidavit-in-opposition. Anyway, we, in the absence of any speaking order, are unable to come to a definite conclu­sion that the said order was passed on the ground that the petitioner was an employee of the Indian Oil Corporation; or that there was no other reason which prompted the appellate authority to pass the order under challenge. The said order is, therefore, unsustainable and is liable to be quashed. 5. The said order is, therefore, unsustainable and is liable to be quashed. 5. In the result the petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 26th April, 1983 passed on appeal is quashed. The appellate authority is directed to re-hear the appeal petition filed by Shri B. K. Goswami against the settlement of UDR (EB) Kherjan Mining lease area Plywood Coupe No. 9 of 1980-81 under Digboi Division and decide it on merits by a speaking order. The appellate authority shall give an opportunity of hearing to both the parties. The parties are directed to file certified copy of this order before the appellate authority and to appear before it on 16th September, 1983. The appellate authority shall after bearing the parties decide the appeal within one month there­after. This Court had already passed an interim order for the maintenance of status quo. We order that the said interim order directing the parties to maintain status quo shall remain in opera­tion till 16th September, 1983, when the parties shall appear before the appellate authority. It shall then be open to the appellate authority to pass any interim order in the matter as it may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.