JUDGMENT G.C. Mathur, J. - This is an appeal against the judgment of Gulati, J. refusing to interfere in the writ petition filed by the appellant on the ground of suppression of some facts. 2. The dispute relates to the allotement of a shop. It was allotted to the appellant but on the application of respondent No. 5 Satya Prakash Gupta, the appellant's allotment was cancelled on the ground of misrepresentation and fraud. Against the order of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, the appellant filed a revision under Section 7-F of the U.P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947. The State Government dismissed the revision and against the order of State Government, the appellant filed a writ petition in this Court, one of the grounds on which the appellant & challenged the order of the State Government was that it was not a speaking order. The learned Single Judge accepted this contention but refused to exercise discretion in favour of the appellant on the ground that he had failed to disclose in his writ petition that respondent No. 5 had filed a suit in the civil Court in respect of the shop in dispute. 3. Having heard counsel for the parties, we are of opinion that the writ-petition ought to have been allowed. It is not well settled that in deciding a revision under Section 7-F in matter of allotment, the State Government is required to act quasi-judicially (See Prem Prakash Virmani v. State Government and others, AIR 1971 Allahabad 82 (Full Bench). It is also well settled that in passing quasi judicial orders, the authority must give reasons for the order. We have perused the order of the State Government. In our opinion, it gives no reasons for dismissing the revision under Section 7-F. Even though the order of the State Government is one confirming the order of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, it does not indicate the points raised by the appellant and the decision of the State Government thereon. The State Government's order merely recites that the order of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer covers eight pages and that it agrees with that order. This, in our opinion, does not amount to giving reasons for the order even though it is an order of confirmation. 4. The State Government's order merely recites that the order of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer covers eight pages and that it agrees with that order. This, in our opinion, does not amount to giving reasons for the order even though it is an order of confirmation. 4. It is true that the appellant has not made any reference to the suit filed by respondent No. 5 against the appellant in the civil Court., A plaint of this suit has been annexed to the counter-affidavit filed by respondent No. 5 to the writ petition. The suit is for eviction of the appellant from the shop in dispute and for damages. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 5 has strenuously con- tended that the controversy Which arises in the revision under Section 7-F is to same which arises in the Civil suit. We are unable to agree. Since today there is no subsisting order allotment in favour of the appellant, he cannot successfully resist the suit. Even if as the learned counsel for the respondents asserts, the Civil court can reconsider the question of vacancy, it cannot in our opinion, go behind the finding of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer that the allotment order was obtained by misrepresentation and fraud. If it cannot go behind that finding, it cannot restore the order of allotment in favour of the respondent and the remedy which the appellant is now seeking. under Section 7-F, cannot be granted to him in the civil suit That being so, the filing of the Civil suit has no effect what-ever on the proceeding under Section 7-F and the non-mention of the filing of that suit in the writ petition did not amount to suppression of any relevant fact. In our opinion, the learned Single Judge was out justified in refusing to exercise his discretion in favour of the appellant on the sole ground that he had made no mention of the Civil suit in his writ petition. 5. The appeal is accordingly allowed, the judgment of the learned Single Judge is set aside, the writ petition is allowed and the order of the State Government dated November 24, 1971, is quashed. The revision will now be disposed of in accordance with law. There will be no order as to costs.