Judgment Smt. Abhilasha Kumari, J.—Rule. Ms. Nisha M. Thakore, learned Assistant Government Pleader waives service of notice of Rule for respondents. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and with the consent of the learned counsel for the respective parties, the petition is being heard and finally decided. 2. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred, inter alia, with a prayer to quash and set aside the impugned order dated 30-10-2012, passed by the Secretary (Appeals), Revenue Department, whereby the application for grant of interim stay preferred by the petitioner, pending the Revision Application, has been rejected. 3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the petitioner purchased the land bearing Revenue Survey Nos. 25/1, 25/2/1. 25/2/2, 34/1 and 34/2 at village Zaver, District Porbandar by way of a Registered Sale Deed dated, 17-2-2006. The petitioner moved an application for grant of N.A. Permission for industrial purposes in respect of the land in question, which was rejected by the Collector vide order dated 12-11-2009. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner approached the Secretary (Appeals), Revenue Department by way of filing an application being Revision Application No. MVV/BKHP/PRB/1/2012. Along with the Revision Application, the petitioner preferred an application for grant of interim stay which has been rejected by the impugned order, giving rise to the filing of the present petition. 4. Mr. A.B. Munshi, learned advocate for the petitioner submits that the impugned order dated 30-10-2012 passed by the Secretary (Appeals), Revenue Department is an unreasoned and cryptic order. No reasons, whatsoever, have been recorded for refusal of the interim relief prayed for by the petitioner and the application made by the petitioner has been rejected. 5. Ms. Nisaha M. Thakore, learned Assistant Government Pleader states on the basis of written instructions, dated 7-3-2013, issued on behalf of the Secretary (Appeals) by the Mamlatdar, Revenue Department (Appeals) that if the matter is remanded to the Secretary (Appeals), the same shall be heard afresh. It is further stated that the main Revision Application also can be heard. 6. Heard Mr. A.B. Munshi, learned advocate for the petitioner and Ms. Nisha M. Thakore, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondents. 7. It is further stated that the main Revision Application also can be heard. 6. Heard Mr. A.B. Munshi, learned advocate for the petitioner and Ms. Nisha M. Thakore, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondents. 7. A perusal of the impugned order dated 30-10-2012 makes if evident that apart from recording the submissions advanced by the learned advocate for the petitioner, the application for grant of stay has been rejected simply by stating that “no case is made out for grant of interim stay”. No reasons, whatsoever, have been recorded by the Secretary (Appeals) in support of this conclusion. 8. It is a settled position of law, expounded in a catena of judgments by this Court and the Supreme Court, that a Court, judicial forum or a quasi judicial authority, is bound to give reasons in support of any conclusion arrived at in an order. 9. As the learned Assistant Government Pleader has made a statement that the respondents are willing to hear the petitioner afresh after remand of the matter, the Court would not dwell further on this issue. 10. In view of the fact that the impugned order is a cryptic and unreasoned one and, therefore, cannot stand the scrutiny of law, the following order is passed: The impugned order dated 30-10-2012, passed by the Secretary (Appeals), Revenue Department, below Revision Application No.MVV/BKHP/PRB/1/2012, is quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded to the Secretary (Appeals), Revenue Department with a direction to hear the petitioner and pass a fresh order, in accordance with law. 11. The petition is partly-allowed in the above terms. Rule is made absolute, accordingly. Direct service of this order is permitted.