IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 1964 of 2008 (M/S) Prakash Krish Ali S/o Bhagwan Singh Krishali R/o Village & P.O. Mali Dewal Patti Juwa, Tehsil & District Tehri Garhwal. ………Petitioner. Versus 1. State of Uttarakhand through its Principal Secretary Government of Uttarakhand Dehradun. 2. Sub-Divisional Magistrate Tehri, District Tehri Garhwal. ………….Respondents. Shri A.M. Saklani, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri K.P. Upadhyay, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel 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 24.10.2008, passed by respondent No. 2 (copy annexure-11 to the writ petition), whereby Sub Divisional Magistrate, Tehri, has directed the petitioner on administrative ground to stop the mining work. A further mandamus has been sought directing the respondnets not to interfere with the work of mining in Khasra No. 1513 area 0.181 hectares in Village Malideval, Patti Juwa, District Tehri Garhwal. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner drew attention of this Court to letter dated -.05.2008 (copy annexure-5 to the writ petition) issued by the Director Geological and Mining Work Unit, Dehradun to District Magistrate, Tehri Garhwal, whereby the petitioner has been granted mining in respect of plots No. 1477, 1513, 1544, 1571, 1572, 1573 and 1574, total area 0.467 hectares in Village Malideval, for a period of two years. Copy of the lease deed executed between District Magistrate, Tehri Garhwal and the petitioner is annexure-7 to the writ petition, which contains certain terms and conditions under which the lease is granted. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued vide impugned order dated 24.10.2008, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Tehri, has directed the petitioner to stop the work of mining without mentioning if any of the conditions mentioned in the lease deed are violated. It is further contended that the petitioner’s right to the mining work cannot be interfered with unless the petitioner has violated any of the terms and conditions of the lease deed or any provision of law applicable to the mining. On perusal of the impugned order, passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, this Court finds that simply this much is mentioned that some villagers of Tiwar Gaon and Marora, are opposing the mining work. It is not clear whether the persons opposing the mining work are doing so due to grudge against the petitioner or otherwise. 4. Apart from this, attention of this Court is drawn to sub-section (3) of Section 4A of The Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, which reads as under:- “(3) No order making a premature termination of a prospecting license or mining lease shall be, made except after giving the holder of the license or lease a reasonable opportunity of being heard.” 5. In the above circumstances, the impugned order since apparently appears to have been passed without giving opportunity of being heard and without assigning any reason as to the violation of the term of deed or violation of law, the same is liable to be quashed. 6. Therefore, this writ petition is summarily disposed of with the direction that the impugned order dated 24.10.2008, passed by Sub Divisional Magistrate, Tehri Garhwal, directing the petitioner on administrative ground to stop the mining work is hereby quashed. However, it is made clear that the authorities concerned are at liberty to suspend or terminate the lease granted to the petitioner, in terms of the lease deed or in accordance with the provisions of law applicable to the lease. (Stay application No. 7370 of 2008, also stands disposed of). (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) Dt. 06.11.2008 Sweta