IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.9934 of 2010 1. ANGAD KUMAR SINHA, S/O SHRI ALAKHDEO NARAYAN, R/O VILLAGE NARAYANPUR PANARI, P.S. BELAGANJ,DISTRICT-GAYA. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. THE COMMISSIONER,MINES AND GEOLOGY, BIHAR, PATNA. 3. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE,GAYA. null null 4. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR,MINES AND GEOLOGY,GAYA. ----------- 3. 07.04.2011 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the Department of Mines. The petitioner is stated to be a lessee at Mauza Dhanawan, Plot no. 1840 in the district of Gaya under a lease dated 29.1.2009 for five years. He is aggrieved by the order dated 19.4.2010 prematurely terminating his lease. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that a show cause notice was given on 13.1.2010 for alleged violation of conditions of the lease. Without prejudice to the contention that the show cause itself was vague, the petitioner based on his understanding replied the same on 19.1.2010.The submission is that if there was a show cause notice duly replied to, it was the duty of the Administrator to then pass a reasoned order why the cause shown was not acceptable. The impugned order does not show any application of mind or consideration but simply states that it was not acceptable. The writ petition was filed on 29.6.2010. Till date no counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents. Learned Counsel for the respondents submits that the order may be set aside and the matter may be remanded. Alternatively the petitioner may be directed to approach the Mines Commissioner in revision application. The Court in this writ application is not concerned with the merits of the decision for cancellation the lease. The Court at this stage is concerned with the decision making process. If cause had been shown by the petitioner it was not an empty formality to be thrown in the dustbin after it was submitted. The authorities had a bounden duty to consider the same before interfering with the leasehold rights of the petitioner. The right to continue with the mining during pendency of the lease, but according to the terms of the conditions of the lease, was a right which could not be lightly interferred with. If the petitioner had breached the conditions of the lease there can be no two opinions in the matter. But for this there had first to be an adjudicatory finding of the breach. The administrative authority vested with powers does not possess absolute powers for issuing edicts. His powers are regulated by statutory powers. If he transgressed the boundaries of the statutory limits the order has to be struck down by this Court. In absence of any reasoning in the order, it stands long settled by the precedence of judgment which need not be reiterated, the order per se becomes illegal. The order dated 19.4.2010 is set aside. The writ application stands allowed. This shall be without prejudice to the rights of the respondents to proceed afresh in accordance with law if so advised. Snkumar/- (Navin Sinha,J.)