JUDGMENT Satish Chandra, J. - This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution chat lenges the validity of an order passed by reasons mentioned by it on its file, the the State Government dismissing an application under Section 7-F of the Rent Control Act. The petitioners are the tenants of an accommodation in premises No. 380, Sarai Lal Das, Meerut City. Prem Narain Rathi, respondent no. 4 is the landlord. The landlord applied for permission to file a suit for the ejectment of the petitioners under Section 3 of the Rent Control Act, 1947. The Rent Control Officer, after hearing the parties, rejected the application on 4-9-1965. The landlord went up in revision which was allowed on 22-21965. This time the tenants felt aggrieved and filed a representation to the State Government under Section 7-F of the Act. On 10th April, 1967, the State Government dismissed the said representation. The order stated that the records have been examined and considered and it appears expedient in the interest of justice that the order of the Additional Commissioner should not be interfered with but the petitioners should be allowed some time to seek alternative accommodation for themselves. This order has been challenged on the ground that it was passed in proceedings which were quasi-judicial in nature and, therefore, the State Government was under a legal obligation to give reasons in support of its order. The learned Junior Standing Counsel has placed the file of the State Government of this case before me, a perusal ,thereof shows that the State Government reached its result on the basis of certain reasons mentioned in the file. It is thus apparent that in this case, the State Government recorded its reasons for holding that this is not a case fit for interfering with the findings of the Additional Commissioner. But the Government did not mention its reasons in its order or otherwise convey them to the parties. The Supreme Court has held that the proceedings under Section 7-F are Quasi Judicial Vide Lala Sri Bhagwan and another v. Ram Chand and another, 1965 ALJ 353. In view of the fact that the State Government had come to a decision for Certain reason mentioned by it on its file, the larger question whether a quasi-judicial order should be based on reasons does not really arise. In view of the fact that the State Government had come to a decision for Certain reason mentioned by it on its file, the larger question whether a quasi-judicial order should be based on reasons does not really arise. The grievance of the petitioner now is that he was, in law, entitled to be informed of the reasons for which, the decision went against him and for failure in compliance of this salutary rule of law, the order of the State Government was invalid and of no legal effect. In Bhagat Raja v. Union of India and others, A.I.R. 1967 SC 1606, the Supreme Court quoted with approval the observations of Subba Rao, J. (as he then was) in M.P. Industries v. Union of India, A.I.R. 1965 SC 671 (674). The observations were to the effect that a reasoned order is a desirable condition of judicial disposal, why? Because the compulsion of disclosure of its mind, guarantees consideration. It introduces clarity and excludes or at any rate minimises, arbitrariness, and further more, it gives satisfaction to the party against whom the order is made. All these desirable requisites would stand negatived if the authority records its reasons but keeps them in its cloistered chambers. Disclosure is of the essence. The reasons ought to see the light of the day, so that an appellate or supervisory court may keep the authority within bounds. If the reasons are recorded and kept secret and not communicated, and the issued order only repeats a stereotyped formula that all materials have been considered to the stated result, the various weighty factors emphasised by the Supreme Court would remain negatived and would stand circumvented as if they were an empty formality. In Bhagat Raja's case, the Supreme Court emphasised that when important rights of parties are adjudicated upon in a summary fashion without giving a personal hearing, the least that can be expected is that the tribunal should tell the party why the decision is going against him. This declaration of law makes it imperative that where reasons in support of an order are recorded, the requirements of the law would not be satisfied, if those reasons are kept a closely guarded secret and are not disclosed to the parties. In a Quasi-Judicial proceeding, the record is liable to be brought up, seen and corrected in certiorari, and in an appeal. In a Quasi-Judicial proceeding, the record is liable to be brought up, seen and corrected in certiorari, and in an appeal. There is nothing confidential nor sacrosanct in such a record. There is hence no point in recording the reasons on the file and keeping them a secret from the parties. Where a Quasi-Judicial authority passes an order for reasons recorded by it the order would be invalid if it is issued without its supporting reasons. The petitioner's grievance that the order dated 10th April, 1967, was invalid in the eye of law seems justified. It was incumbent upon the State Government to have informed the parties of the reasons upon which its order was based. That was admittedly not done in the present case. In the result, the petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order of the State Government is set aside; the matter is sent back for decision to the State Govern tent in the light of the observations made above. The parties will bear own costs.