JUDGMENT:- By this petition the petitioners challenge the interim order dated 20th July, 2006 passed by the Honourable Minister for Co-operation and Textile, Government of Maharashtra by which he has stayed the order dated 15th July, 2006 passed by the Divisional Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Mumbai on the ground that order suffers from patent error of law for want of reasons. FACTUAL MATRIX 2. Factual matrix reveals that the petitioner No.1 is a Society registered under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (the Act for short). Respondent No.3 passed an order under Section 89-A of the Act appointing an Enquiry Officer to inspect record of the petitioner No.1 Society. After conducting inspection of the record, Respondent No.3 issued show-cause notice under Section 78 of the Act calling upon the petitioner Society to explain as to why its managing committee should not be superseded. 3. The petitioners filed their reply to the show-cause notice issued by the respondent No.3 The respondent No.3 passed an order dated 30th June, 2006 under Section 78 of the Act superseding the managing committee of the petitioner No.1 Society, consisting of petitioner Nos.2 to 9. 4. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 30th June, 2006 petitioners filed an appeal under Section 152 of the Act before the respondent No.4 Respondent No.4 granted stay to the order passed by the respondent No.3 and ultimately allowed appeal filed by the petitioners by an order dated 15th July, 2006 and set aside the order dated 30th June, 2006. 5. The respondent not satisfied with the aforesaid order dated 15th July, 2006, has preferred revision before the Honourable Minister for Co-operation and Textile, Government of Maharashtra, to challenge the said order of the respondent No.4. 6. The Revisional Authority viz. the Honourable Minister for Cooperation vide its order dated 20th July, 2006 granted interim stay to the order dated 15th July, 2006 without specifying any reason. 7. The aforesaid order dated 20th July, 2006 is the subject-matter of challenge in the present petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. CONSIDERATION 8. Having heard the rival parties, it is not in dispute that the interim order, which is impugned herein, is a one-line order. In large number of matters, this Court finds orders being passed perfunctorily by the Department without dealing with the contentions and giving reasons in support of the order. CONSIDERATION 8. Having heard the rival parties, it is not in dispute that the interim order, which is impugned herein, is a one-line order. In large number of matters, this Court finds orders being passed perfunctorily by the Department without dealing with the contentions and giving reasons in support of the order. This is one of those cases. It is needless to mention that the order of the judicial, quasi-judicial or the administrative authority should be a self-explanatory order and should not keep the higher Court guessing for reasons. Even in case of interim order, reasons in short are necessary. The reasons provide link between conclusion and the evidence. That vital link is a safeguard against arbitrariness, passion and prejudice. Reason is a manifestation of mind of adjudicature. It is a tool for judging the order. It gives opportunity to the higher Court to see whether or not the order is passed on the relevant material. 9. I must reiterate that any decision given by the appellate or revisional authority is subject to supervisory power of the High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India and in a given case of the' appellate power of the Supreme Court under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. The High Court and the Supreme Court would be placed under a great disadvantage if well considered' and well reasoned order is not passed by the appellate or revisional authority either in revision or appeal as the case may be. Therefore, it was the duty of the revisional authority to independently apply its mind to the evidence on record and then to have recorded reasons in support of the order, though in short. In the present case, except one-sentence order, no reasons are to be found in support of the said order. 10. As a consequence of the impugned order, the administratioJ1 of the Society can be taken over by the administrator. The impugned order is passed without hearing opponents, viz. present petitioners. Needless to mention that there cannot be final interim order without hearing all parties, who are likely to be affected. If at all, case justifies grant of ex-parte order, then the authority passing the order should grant ad-interim order operative for short period with short notice to the other side and should confirm or vacate or modify the same after hearing rival parties. If at all, case justifies grant of ex-parte order, then the authority passing the order should grant ad-interim order operative for short period with short notice to the other side and should confirm or vacate or modify the same after hearing rival parties. Since no such procedure is being followed by the State Government, I intend to lay down certain parameters which are required to be followed by the authorities in cases where a stay application is made by the applicant/appellant pending appeal or revision as the case may be. PARAMETERS (a) While considering the stay application, the authority concerned should at least briefly set out case of the applicant/ appellant, as the case may be. (b) While granting the ex-parte order, it should be granted for a shorter duration with short notice to the opponent (s). (c) If ex-parte stay is to be granted, then the authority passing the order should specify the reasons in short for grant of exparte order. (d) The authority passing the order should (i) record its findings as to whether or not a prima facie case is made out with short reasons in support of the findings; (ii) record its finding as to in whose favour balance of convenience lies, and (iii) record its finding whether nongrant of interim relief would cause any prejudice to the person seeking interim relief. (e) The ingredients at (d) (i) to (iii) should be discussed and positive finding should be recorded while granting or refusing to grant interim relief. This Court clarifies that the above parameters are only recommendatory and not exhaustive. 11. Mere one-line order, as seen in this case, can hardly be justified or said to be legal order. The impugned order demonstrates non-application of mind. It exhibits blatant arbitrariness on the part of the revisional authority passing the order. 12. In the above view of the matter, we have no option but to set aside the impugned order with direction to the revisional authority to decide the revision as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order by it. In the mean-while, parties shall maintain status-quo. Needless to emphasise and reiterate that the order disposing of the revision must be a reasoned order, following the principles of natural justice in its true letter and spirit. 13. In the result, petition is allowed. In the mean-while, parties shall maintain status-quo. Needless to emphasise and reiterate that the order disposing of the revision must be a reasoned order, following the principles of natural justice in its true letter and spirit. 13. In the result, petition is allowed. Impugned order is set aside and rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a) of the petition. No order as to costs. The Chief Secretary, Government of Maharashtra is directed to circulate copy of this judgment to all the appellate and revisional authorities of the State with directions to follow the law laid down in the present judgment so as to avoid unnecessary litigation in various Courts on this count. Petition allowed.