JUDGMENT - S.M. HAJARNAVIS, J.:---This is a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution against the order passed by the Government of Maharashtra-respondent No. 2 on 1st January, 1971 rejecting the application of the petitioners filed under section 88-D of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (hereinafter called as the "Tenancy Act") praying that certificate issued to the respondent No. 1 under section 88-B of the tenancy Act be revoked. The petitioners are the tenants of three Survey Numbers situate at village Chinawal of Raver Taluka belonging to respondent No. 1 which is a Public Charitable Trust. The trustees have obtained a certificate under section 88-B of the tenancy Act on 21st December, 1959. It was the case of the petitioners that the certificate has been issued in favour of the respondent No. 1 by the revenue authorities without giving them a notice. The petitioners then made an application on 30th July, 1967 to the State of Maharashtra under section 88-D of the tenancy Act praying that the certificate issued in favour of respondent No. 1 under section 88-B be cancelled on various grounds. The State Government directed the Tahsildar to conduct an enquiry and submit the report. It appears that the Tahsildar has recorded evidence and forwarded the same to the State Government. The State Government thereafter by a letter dated 1st January, 1971 written by the Under Secretary to the Government of Maharashtra, Revenue and Forest Department, informed the petitioner that his request regarding the certificate granted under section 88-B of the tenancy Act cannot be granted. The petitioners thereafter made an application for certified copy of the order passed by the State Government but on 23rd May, 1971 he received a certified copy on a stampted paper of the same letter dated 1st January, 1971. That letter is annexed to the petition as Annexture A collectively which reads :--- "With reference to your application dated 30th July, 1967 on the subject mentioned above, I am directed to state that your request to revoke the exemption granted under section 88-B(1) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, to Shri Ram Mandir Chinawal Charitable Trust, Chinawal, cannot it is regretted be granted. Yours faithfully, Sd/- Under Secretary to Government of Maharashtra, Revenue and Forests Department." It is against this order that the present petition has been filed. Mr. Yours faithfully, Sd/- Under Secretary to Government of Maharashtra, Revenue and Forests Department." It is against this order that the present petition has been filed. Mr. Jahagirdar, the learned Counsel for the petitioners, submitted that these proceedings are quasi judicial proceedings and the petitioners ought to have been heard by the State Government after the receipt of the record submitted by the Tahsildar who conducted the enquiry. In my opinion, the submission is well-founded. Mr. Lovekar, the Assistant Government Pleader who appeared for the State-respondent No. 2, submitted that the State Government is prepared to give a hearing to the petitioner. Mr. Sukhtankar, the learned Counsel for respondent No. 1(A) submitted that it is not necessary that personal hearing should be given to the petitioners. The State Government has sent the matter to the Tahsildar to make an enquiry and the Tahsildar has recorded the evidence of a number of witnesses. The petitioners were given opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses and he then submitted the report to the State Government and it is on the basis of this report that this order has been passed. Therefore, it was not necessary for the State Government to again grant personal hearing to the petitioners before the order is passed. In my opinion, it is not possible to accept the submission of Mr. Sukhtankar. There is nothing on record to show what report the Tahsildar has made to the State Government. The copy of the report was also not given to the petitioners. It is true that it is not necessary to give a personal hearing in every case but in this particular case, the proceeding are at least quasi judicial proceeding inasmuchas the certificate is issued under section 88-B of the tenancy Act and that certificate is issued by the mamlatdar after making detailed enquiry where the interested parties are given notice and it is, therefore, necessary to follow the same procedure for the cancellation of the certificate. The issue of the certificate is to be made by the Tahsildar, while the power to cancel the certificate is granted to the State Government and it is, therefore, necessary that the State Government should hear the parties before any order is passed on the application filed by the party under section 88-D for cancellation of the certificate. The issue of the certificate is to be made by the Tahsildar, while the power to cancel the certificate is granted to the State Government and it is, therefore, necessary that the State Government should hear the parties before any order is passed on the application filed by the party under section 88-D for cancellation of the certificate. Here in this particular case, the petitioners have filed application to the State Government making several allegations against the trustees-respondents. The petitioners have made a statement that he was not heard by the State Government and no notice was given to him after the report was submitted by the Tahsildar to the State Government. No affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State Government showing that the report made and the evidence recorded by the Tahsildar were scrutinized by somebody on behalf of the State Government. No material has been placed before the Court to show that all that material has been examined by any authorised person on behalf of the State Government before the order is passed. We are also not informed who has taken ultimate decision in the matter on behalf of the State Government. On the contrary, Mr. Lovekar state that the State Government is prepared to give a hearing to the parties. Under these circumstances, the order passed by the State Government is liable to be quashed. In the result, the petition is allowed and the order passed by the State Government on 1st January, 1971 is quashed and the matter is sent back to the State Government for decision according to law. The rule is made absolute. Under the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs. -----