- 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA. WRIT PETITION NO. 51 OF 2011. Smt. Mariam Bi Khan, residing at H. No.30, Cottowaddo, Sanguem, Goa. …....... Petitioner. Versus 1 Revision Authority (Central Government), Government of India, Ministry of Mines, Krishi Bhawan, New Delhi. 2 The Government of Goa, Office of Secretary (Mines), Secretariat, Porvorim, Bardez Goa. …....... Respondents. Mr. A. N. S. Nadkarni, Senior Advocate with Mr. S. Kamat Malyekar, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. S. Mordekar, Additional Government Advocate for respondent no. 2. CORAM :- A. P. LAVANDE, J. DATE : 18 th February, 2011. ORAL JUDGMENT : Mr. Nadkarni, Senior Advocate seeks leave to delete Section 226. Leave granted. Amendment to be carried out forthwith. - 2 - 2. Heard Mr. A. N. S. Nadkarni, Senior Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. S. Mordekar, Additional Government Advocate for respondent no.2. Respondent no.1 is a formal party. 3. Rule. By consent heard forthwith. 4. By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, petitioner challenges the order dated 30.12.2010 passed by respondent no.1 in revision application preferred by the petitioner under Section 30 of the Mines and Mineral (Development and Regulation) Act 1957 although several contentions has been raised in the petition, petition deserves to be allowed on the short ground. Mr. Nadkarni learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner states that although several contentions were urged before the Provisional authority same has been absolutely not dealt with nor reasons have been given for dismissing the revision application. 5. Ms. S. Mordekar, learned Additional Government Advocate fairly concedes that impugned order deserves to be - 3 - quashed and set aside and matter be remanded to respondent no.1 for fresh decision. 6. Perusal of the impugned order discloses that the respondent no.1 has absolutely not given reasons for dismissing the revision application. It is well settled by cantena of decisions of the Apex Court that a quasi judicial authorities while passing an order must give reasons for the same. Moreover learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent no. 2 has fairly conceded that several contentions of the petitioner are not dealt with. This being the position, the impugned order is patently unsustainable in law and is liable to be quashed and set aside. 7. For the reasons aforesaid, impugned order dated 30.12.2010 passed by the respondent no.1 is quashed and set aside. Respondent no. 1 is directed to pass fresh order after giving an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner in the light of the observation made above and in accordance with law. Respondent no.1 shall deal with all the contentions that may be raised by the petitioner in the course of hearing of the appeal. Respondent no.1 - 4 - shall dispose of the revision application expeditiously and in any case on or before 30.4.2011. Needless to mention that all the rival contentions of the parties are kept open. 8. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms, with no order as to costs. A. P. LAVANDE, J. vn*