IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (M/S) No. 906 of 2009. Rajendra Prakash Upadhyay, S/O Sri Prem Ballabh Upadhyay, R/O Village Kholia Gaon, District Bageshwar. … Petitioner. Vs. 1. State of Uttarakhand through Principal Secretary, Industries, Dehradun.. 2. District Magistrate, Bageshwar. 3. Senior Mine Officer, Dehradun. …Respondents. Date March 26, 2010. Hon’ble B.S.Verma, J. Heard Mr. D.S.Patni, 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.1, (Annexure-1 to the writ petition). The grievance of the petitioner is that the petitioner applied for grant of prospective licence for mining operations at Kholiyagaon Bageshwar on 22-3-1998. Recommendation was made in favour of the petitioner. 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 application dated 22-3-1998. 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 2 (Annexure-10 to the petition) wherein it is stated 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 application for 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 22-3-1998 for prospective licence/mining lease was rejected. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that this Court vide order dated 25-3-2010 passed in Writ Petition No. 959 of 2009 (M/S), Umed Singh Kalakoti Vs. Joint Secretary, Industrial Development and others, has allowed the writ petition. Learned counsel also submitted that the facts of the case at hand are almost similar to the facts of the Writ Petition No. 959 of 2009. Learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents has fairly conceded that the writ petition No. 959 of 2009 of Umed Singh Kalakoti was allowed and direction was given to the authority concerned to pass fresh order after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. I have perused the letter of the District Magistrate Bageshwar addressed to the Joint Secretary of the State Government (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 application for 3 prospective licence. 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. 1 (Annexure-1 to the petition) is set aside. However, it is directed that after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, the respondent no. 1 may pass order afresh in accordance with law. All pending applications also stand disposed of. (B.S.Verma,J.) RCP