IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 1586 of 2008 (M/S) Bihari Lal S/o late Sri Jogeshwar Prasad R/o Village Chamoligaon, Patti Langoorwalla, Tehsil Satpuli, District Pauri Garhwal, Uttarakhand. …………. Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Uttarakhand through Secretary, Industrial Department, Uttarakhand Sashan, Secretariat, Dehradun. 2. The District Magistrate, Pauri Garhwal, at Pauri, District Pauri Garhwal. …………….. Respondents Mr. U.P.S. Negi, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. K.P. Upadhyay, Addl. C.S.C. for the respondents. Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2) By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has sought writ in the nature of certiorari, quashing the order dated 24.07.2008, passed by the District Magistrate, Pauri Garhwal, whereby the mining lease granted in favour of the petitioner on 13.07.2007, for three years, is cancelled. 3) Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the affidavit, counter affidavit and rejoinder affidavit, it is clear that admittedly mining lease was granted to the petitioner on 13.07.2007 vide letter No. 3601 / 30 / F.C. (2004-05) in respect of plot Nos. 844, 846 and 855 of Village Chamolisain, Patti Langoorwalla, Tehsil Lansdowne (Satpuli) of District Pauri Garhwal, for a period of three years. The impugned order shows that the lease granted was cancelled on the ground that the same could not have been granted in view of the mining policy of the State Government for the year 2001, and it was against the Uttarakhand Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2001. 4) Learned counsel for the petitioner drew attention of this Court to sub-section (3) of Section 4-A of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957, which reads as under: (3) No order making a premature termination of a prospecting licence or mining lease shall be, made except after giving the holder of the licence or lease a reasonable opportunity of being heard. 5) Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the impugned order was passed in violation of the statutory provision, which was required to be followed by the State Government, before cancelling the lease granted in favour of the petitioner. The impugned order passed by the District Magistrate, Pauri Garhwal, appears to be based on the Government letter No. 2664 / VII-II (08) / 77 Kha / 2004 dated 17th July 2008, copy of which is Annexure –2 to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No. 2. This order also does not show if the notice was ever served on the petitioner before passing the impugned order. 6) In the above circumstances, the writ petition deserves to be allowed. The writ petition is allowed. The Impugned order, cancelling the mining lease granted in favour of the petitioner on 13.07.2007, is hereby quashed. However, it is made clear that the respondents are at liberty to pass fresh orders, after complying the provisions of Section 4-A(3) of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957. (Stay Application No. 5950 of 2008 also stands disposed of). (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) Dt. November 04, 2008. H.Negi