An order is required to be speaking in nature and must contain reasons, and the impugned order was non-speaking and did not contain reasons, making it violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

ORDER

1. This appeal is directed against order dated 18.01.2018 passed by Learned Single Judge in Civil Writ Petition No.1577/2017 whereby the petition against cancellation of lease has been partly allowed only to the extent that while maintaining the order of cancellation of lease, order of recovery of Rs.19,50,000/- has been set aside.

2. Brief facts giving rise to the controversy involved in the appeal necessary for adjudication are that the appellant was holding a mining lease on certain terms and conditions. While he was undertaking mining operation, certain allegations were made that the appellant had unauthorisedly sublet the lease in favour of third person which had unauthorisedly led to issuance of a show cause notice on 15.04.2010. The appellant filed reply to the show cause notice denying allegation of subletting and offering an explanation that the engagement of other persons was for limited purposes of collection of Ravannas and depositing the amount apart from the documents. The appellant also brought to the notice of the authorities that the subsisting agreement/ power of attorney has been immediately cancelled. Affidavits of Tek Chand Garg and Mohd. Rafiq which are allowed to be sublet also submitted with agreement of cancellation on 15.04.2010 itself.

3. It however appears that the matter was not closed and later on another notice came to be issued on 05.05.2015 requiring the appellant to deposit the amount of Rs.19,50,000/- failing which appropriate action would be initiated under the Rules of 1986.

4. The appellant again filed reply to the same. Finally impugned order dated 12.06.2015 came to be passed by which the mining lesae of the appellant was cancelled by the Mining Engineer Bharatpur. Another notice thereafter came to be issued on 16.06.2015 reminding the appellant that he is liable to pay Rs.19,50,000/-, which if not paid appears to be of land revenue.

5. The appellant preferred a writ petition which was also disposed off on 17.10.2016 directing the appellant to approach the revisional authority to decide the review petition. Finally the revisional authority also dismissed the appeal on 19.12.2016 giving rise to writ petition filed by the appellant wherein the order passed is impugned in this appeal.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant would argued that the impugned order by which lease has been cancelled suffers from several defects which render the order unsustainable in law. The first submission is that the show cause notice which was initially issued to the petitioner on 15.04.2010 and subsequent notice again issued on 15.05.2015 did not propose cancellation of lease deed. It is argued that the notices only required the petitioner to additional an amount of Rs.19,50,000/- which says that the party even after having held the appellant guilty of breach authority exercised its discretion behind only to impose fine and not to cancel the lease. Second submission of learned counsel for the appellant is that the order of cancellation otherwise is in excess of jurisdiction and authority conferred on the authority under the provisions contained in Rule 18 (21) of the Rules of 1986. Elaborating his submissions, learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the authority to take action is arrived at only in case of failure of the lease holder to remedy the breach in respect of which notices have been issued. It is the case of the appellant that as soon as notice was issued the subsisting power of attorney in favour of one Rafiq was instantly cancelled on 15th of April itself and this document was also placed before the concerned authority. The agreement with the other person namely Tek Chand had lived out its life as it attained natural demise way back on 31.12.2008. Therefore, the breach having being remedied, there was no action required to be taken against the appellant. The third submission of learned counsel for the appellant is that the competent authority having considered the reply of the appellant