The cancellation of quarry lease involves civil consequences, and it is incumbent on the part of the first respondent to follow the due process of hearing in a fair and just manner.

1. In this Writ Petition, petitioner seeks to quash the proceedings of the first respondent in Na.Ka. No.1341 of 2006 (Mines) dated 31.10.2006 with respect to the petitioner's stone quarry comprised in S.F. No.86 (Part 1) and S.F. No.86 (Part 2) over an extent of 5.00.0 Hectares each in Karadipatti Village, Madurai south taluk and quash the same.

2. The brief facts necessary for disposal of the Writ Petition as available in the pleadings are as follows.

a) Petitioner is the successful bidder for stone quarries comprised in S.F.No.86 (Part 1) and (Part 2) of Karadipatti Village, Madurai South Taluk in an extent of 5.00.0 Hectares each. Auction Notification was issued by the first respondent in Madurai District Gazette No.22, dated 21.6.2004. Petitioner's bid amount was Rs.12 lakhs for each quarry. Petitioner was granted leasehold right to quarry rough stones, Jelly for a period of five years from 17.8.2004 to 16.8.2009. Petitioner remitted the entire amount along with security deposit of Rs.1,20,000/- for each quarry and the lease deed was executed on 17.8.2004. Petitioner was the highest bidder for the previous period of quarry in S.F. No.86 (Part 1) for the period of five years from 14.6.1999 to 13.6.2004.

b) According to the petitioner he was doing quarrying operations without any complaint or violation of the conditions stipulated in the lease agreement. But on 14.8.2006, a show cause notice was issued by the first respondent on the basis of the complaint made by the third respondent asking as to why the lease granted in favour of the petitioner shall not be cancelled for violation of the provisions of the Ancient Monument and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958 as well as relevant Rules 1959 and notification issued by the Central Government Gazette F.8/2/90/M, dated 17.6.1992 on the ground that quarrying operation is carried on within 300 metres of ancient monument.

Petitioner submitted his reply on 25.8.2006 that he has not violated the conditions of the lease deed as well as the Rules. It was also pointed out by the petitioner that there was no damage or danger to the ancient monument by the quarrying operation of the petitioner and the complaint has been given by the third respondent without any basis. etitioner was called upon to attend an enquiry on 5.9.2006 and the notice for the said enquiry was issued on 1.9.2005. Petitioner appeared for the enquiry and reiterated the submissions made in the explanation. First respondent, without furnishing copy of the enquiry report said to have been submitted by the second respondent or any other person, has chosen to cancel the lease granted to the petitioner by this proceedings in Na.Ka. No.1341/2006, Mines, dated 31.10.2006. The said order is challenged in this Writ Petition on the ground that the first respondent has no jurisdiction to cancel the quarry lease and that the report submitted by the Tahsildar as well as the Assistant Director of Geology and Mining, which are the basis for passing the impugned order were not furnished to the petitioner. However, the same are relied on in the impugned order and therefore the impugned order is in violation of the principles of natural justice.

(c) It is also urged in the affidavit that the inspection conducted by the Tahsildar as well as the Assistant Director of Geology and Mining are behind the back of the petitioner and without any intimation to the petitioner. It is also stated that the quarry lease itself was notified by the first respondent through the District Gazette and the petitioner being the successful bidder was given lease and the same cannot be cancelled before the expiry of the period without any valid reason as the petitioner never damaged any of the monuments, which are located beyond 300 metres of the petitioner's quarry site.

3. First respondent filed counter affidavit wherein it is stated as follows.

(i) The first respondent received a complaint on 4.8.2006 from Samanar Peravai that their monuments a