Judgment :- N.K. Jain, J. 1. This writ appeal has been filed against the order of the learned single Judge made in W.M.P. No. 21536 of 1999 in W.P. No. 13216 of 199 dated 29. 1999, allowing the respondent in this writ appeal to peruse the documents. 2. Thenecessary facts for the disposal of the writ appeal are as follows: The writ petitioner has challenged the appointment of S.V. Raghavan, R.Ramanujam and M.Subramanian as Directors of Tamil Nadu Mercantile Bank Ltd. Tuticorin. In the miscellaneous petition, the petitioner prayed . that suitable directions may be issued to produce the files and they also may be permitted to peruse the files. The matter was taken to Hon’ble Supreme Court in S.C.P.Nos. 15282 to 15284 of 1999 and the Hon’ble Supreme Court, by order dated 210. 1999 made a direction that the writ petition may be disposed, of expeditiously, if possible within a month. Learned counsel made an application stating that without the disposal of this writ appeal, the main writ petition could not be disposed. In such circumstances, this writ appeal has now been posted, before us. 3. Mr.Habibulla Basha, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant/Reserve Bank of India, submitted that the learned single Judge has erred in giving direction permitting the respondent/writ petitioner, to peruse the documents, so that he can contest his case effectively. Learned senior counsel further submitted that the learned single Judge has erred in construing the decision reported in S.P. Gupta v. President of India and others , A.I.R. 1982 SC 149, and also misconstrued the ratio laid down in R.K. Jain v. Union of India , A.I.R.1993 S.C. 1769. Learned senior counsel further contended that though this Court can see the documents, but in the instant case, direction in the public interest to supply the documents to substantiate the case and put the case effectively is against the public interest as the documents pertaining to confidential note file fall within the classification of privileged document. Learned senior counsel further contended that though this Court can see the documents, but in the instant case, direction in the public interest to supply the documents to substantiate the case and put the case effectively is against the public interest as the documents pertaining to confidential note file fall within the classification of privileged document. It is further submitted that the direction of the learned single Judge permitting the writ petitioner to peruse the records, instead of deciding the writ petition itself is nothing but to allowing them to make out a case on that basis and if the writ petitioner is allowed to be supplied with the confidential note file of the R.B.I, proceedings, it would amount to opening a Pandora box, which is certainly against the public interest. Learned senior counsel, relying upon the decision of the Supreme Court in R.K. Singh v. Union of India , 1999 (9) Supreme 501 submitted that the petitioner cannot even ask the Court to look into the confidential notes for verifying the bald allegations made by the respondent/writ petitioner learned senior counsel further submitted that S.P.Gupta’s case, A.I.R. 1982 SC 149, which is pertaining to the, appointment of additional Judges, is not applicable to the facts of the given case and the orders of the learned single Judge passed in miscellaneous petition has to be set aside. 4. Mr. R.Krishnamoorthy, learned senior counsel appearing for the writ petitioner-respondent in this writ appeal, submitted that the learned single Judge, considering all the materials available on record, has rightly given the direction to the Reserve Bank of India to produce the record and to permit the petitioner to peruse, so that the writ petitioner can put his case effectively as the appointments of respondents 3 to 5 as Directors of the second respondent-Bank are bad and against the provisions of la w. Learned senior counsel also pointed out the-relevant portions from S.P.Gupta’s case, A.I.R. 1982 SC 149 to substantiate his claim. He submitted that no interference is called for in this appeal. 5. We have heard the learned counsel on both sides and the materials produced before this Court and the case laws, relied on by both the learned counsel. Undoubtedly, nobody has got a right to have the reasons communicated. It is not necessary to communicate the reasons by which a conclusion had been arrived at. 5. We have heard the learned counsel on both sides and the materials produced before this Court and the case laws, relied on by both the learned counsel. Undoubtedly, nobody has got a right to have the reasons communicated. It is not necessary to communicate the reasons by which a conclusion had been arrived at. At the same time, reasons already given cannot be added or supplemented at a later stage. What is necessary is that reasons should be available on the files so as to come to a conclusion. The Court can see the records. This Court can further look into the existing reasons. So far as the supply of the document is concerned, law is settled that even if no privilege is claimed, the Court has to see whether the disclosure or the supply of the document is within the public interest or not. But each case depends upon the facts of that case. Now the question before us is whether in the instant- case, the document can be allowed for perusal to make out a case effectively. 6. Considering the legal aspects, this Court has to see whether the disclosure of such documents is in the public interest or withholding the same is in public interest. Considering the facts of the case on hand and the directions of the learned single Judge, we find that though the documents sought for perusal do not involve national security or against the State policy, admittedly, when the notes and the note file are part of unpublished official record and are confidential, in our considered opinion, cannot be asked to be supplied or shown for perusal by the otherside. As such, their disclosure will be against the public interest and therefore the findings of the learned single Judge permitting the writ petitioner to peruse the records stating that such perusal would substantiate his case effectively is not acceptable. 7. That apart, it is nothing but to help the writ petitioner to make out a case without considering the immunity of the record in the public interest though belatedly. More so, in the facts of the given case, the writ petitioner cannot ask for such document for perusal without having any right in public interest We have also perused the records carefully, and in our humble view, according permission for perusal is not in public interest. 8. More so, in the facts of the given case, the writ petitioner cannot ask for such document for perusal without having any right in public interest We have also perused the records carefully, and in our humble view, according permission for perusal is not in public interest. 8. In view of what we have discussed above and for the reasons stated, we are of the firm view that the order of the learned single Judge permitting the writ petitioner to peruse the document will not be in public interest and is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, we set aside the order of the learned single Judge, impugned before us. However, as per the directions of the Honourable Supreme Court, we direct that the writ petition may be listed for early hearing, expeditiously, after obtaining orders from the Hon’ble the Chief Justice. The writ appeal is disposed of accordingly. Connected C.M.Ps. are dismissed.