P. K. JAIN, J. ( 1 ) HEARD learned counsel for the parties. ( 2 ) THE revision is being finally disposed of at the admission stage. ( 3 ) THE claim of the revisionist is that five forms XXXI of the revisionist were stolen and misused by some third party. His contention is that forms were issued for importing chemicals but against the said forms "supari", "betel nut" has been imported. The revisionist has informed about the theft of the said forms to the concerned authority and the Principal Secretary, Institutional finance, Government of U. P. had directed investigation by S. I. B. vide order dated June 2, 1999. It is submitted that the enquiry was still going on, yet the assessing authority passed the final assessment order imposing heavy tax upon the revisionist. In appeal filed before the Deputy commissioner (Appeals) an application for staying the recovery of the disputed amount of tax was moved which was partly allowed and stay was granted only with regard to 75 per cent of the disputed amount of tax. ( 4 ) AGGRIEVED by not granting stay in respect of balance 25 per cent the revisionist filed second appeal. The Tribunal by a non-speaking order granted stay to the extent of 90 per cent. The tribunal ought to have considered the entire facts and thereafter ought to have passed a speaking order considering the merit of the claim of the revisionist. ( 5 ) THIS Court in several cases took the view that the application for stay should not be treated casually and the authorities should not pass routine order. They should pass order after considering the entire facts and circumstances. In the instant case, however, I find that the impugned order dated August 3, 2001 has been passed by the Tribunal in the same manner. Hence, impugned order cannot be sustained. It is set aside with a direction to the Tribunal to pass a fresh speaking order after affording an opportunity of hearing to the revisionist. .