IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (M/S) No. 959 of 2009. Umed Singh Kalakoti, aged 65 years, Son of Late Sri Prem Singh Kalakoti, Resident of Village Majhiakhet, P.O. Bageshwar, District Bageshwar. … Petitioner. Vs. 1. Joint Secretary, Industrial Development, Anubhag-1, State of Uttarakhand, Dehradun. 2. District Magistrate, Bageshwar. 3. Principal Secretary, Industrial Development Anubhag-I, Uttarakhand State, Dehradun. …Respondents. Date March 25, 2010. Hon’ble B.S.Verma, J. Heard Mr. Vijay Bhatt, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. K.P.Upadhyay, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the respondents and Mr. Pradeep Hairiya and Mr. Ravi Joshi, Advocates, for the interveners. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has sought a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 22-5-2009 passed by the respondent no.3, (Annexure-11 to the writ petition). The grievance of the petitioner is that the petitioner was granted prospective licence for mining lease vide order dated 24-10-1996. The petitioner was granted mining lease, which was to be executed subsequently. According to the petitioner recommendation was also made by the authority concerned. The State Government, by order dated 18th May, 2009 (Annexure-9) gave a direction to the District Officer/District Magistrate Bageshwar to intimate to the petitioner to appear before the authority concerned of the State Government on 21st May 2009 for hearing on the grant of mining lease pursuant to his applications dated 1-5-1998 and 7-1- 1999. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the letter issued by District Magistrate Bageshwar to the Secretary, Industrial Development of the State Government dated 26-5-2009 wherein it is stated 2 that the said letter was received on 22-5-2009 in the office of the District Magistrate, therefore, the information could not be given as has been directed by the State Government and a request was made to fix any other date for hearing. But without giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, the State Government on 22-5-2009 itself cancelled the prospective licence of the petitioner and it has been wrongly mentioned in the impugned order that vide letter dated 18-5-2009, time was given for hearing to the petitioner fixing 21-5-2009 but the petitioner or his representative did not appear and the applications dated 1-5-1998 and 7-1-1999 for prospective licence/mining lease were rejected. Despite the opportunity given, no counter affidavit has been filed. I have perused the letter of the District Magistrate Bageshwar (Annexure-10 to the petition) wherein it has been mentioned that this letter dated 18-5-2009 was received in the office of the Collector on 22-5-2009, so that information could not be given. It is made clear that the State Government had directed the District Magistrate that intimation be given to the petitioner at his own level. No intimation was given by the State Government as well as by the Collector to the petitioner. In the above facts and circumstances, the impugned order is violative of principles of natural justice. No opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner prior to cancelling his prospective licence/mining lease. The impugned order, therefore, is liable to be set aside. The writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 22-5- 2009 passed by the respondent no. 3 (Annexure-11 to the petition) is set aside. However, it is directed that after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, the respondent no. 3 may pass order afresh in accordance with law. All pending applications also stand disposed of. (B.S.Verma,J.) RCP 3