The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for administrative authorities to provide valid reasons for their decisions, emphasizing transparency, fairness, and the need for reasoned orders in administrative decision-making.

(Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records of the 1st respondent G.O. bearing G.O.(D)No.61 Industries (MMB-2) Department dated 11.04.2016 pertaining to the petitioner's Patta land granite quarry measuring 1.71.5 hectares comprised in S.Nos.39/1B and 49/1B1 situated in V. PUDUKKOTTAI Village Vedasandur Taluk Dindigul District and quash the same.)

Challenging the order passed by the first respondent in G.O. (D)No. 61, Industries (MMB-2) Department, dated 11.04.2016 cancelling the petitioner's lease, the present writ petition has been filed.

2. Heard Mr. K.Ramakrishna Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. B.Pugalendhi, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondents.

3. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is as follows:-

The petitioner was granted with quarry lease to quarry granite in respect of the petitioner's lease hold patta lands measuring 1.71.5 hectares comprised in S.Nos.39/1B and 49/1B1 situated in V. Pudukottai Village, Vedasandur Taluk, Dindigul District vide G.O(3D)No.78, Industries (MMB-2), dated 16.10.2007 for a period of 20 years from 10.12.2007 to 09.10.2027. Pursuant to the order granting lease, the petitioner executed a lease agreement and commenced quarrying operations in the year 2007. While so, in the year 2013, on the basis of the direction issued by the third respondent, the Tahsildar, Vedasandur said to have inspected the petitioner's quarry and filed a report to the third respondent alleging number of violations. Thereafter, the third respondent directed the Revenue Divisional Officer, Palani to inspect the subject quarry and file a report. Based on the said direction, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Palani inspected the subject quarry and filed a report alleging that the petitioner has quarried 17150 cbm of granite from the poramboke lands situated nearby the petitioner's quarry and also removed 11047 cbm of granite from the safety area, in total, the petitioner has quarried 28197 cbm illegally. It is further stated that based on the said report, the third respondent issued a show cause notice to the petitioner on 24.07.2013 for the alleged illegal quarry. It is further stated that during the enquiry, the petitioner submitted his explanation and raised objection but without considering his objection, the third respondent passed an order levying penalty of Rs.1,65,59,200/- by an order dated 27.01.2014. Challenging the above said order, the petitioner filed a statutory appeal before the second respondent and the same is pending. It is further stated that since the third respondent refused to issue transport permits to the petitioner to transport the quarried mineral during the currency of lease, the petitioner filed a writ petition. It is further submitted that in the meantime, after levying the penalty, the third respondent sent recommendation to the second respondent to cancel the petitioner lease alleging number of violations. Thereafter, when the first respondent sent a notice to the petitioner calling upon him to appear for enquiry on 01.02.2016 without issuing any show cause notice and even copies of documents relied upon by the respondents were not furnished to him. Pursuant to the notice, the petitioner appeared before the respondent on 01.02.2016 and submitted a detailed submission and produced documentary evidence to show that the petitioner never indulged in any illegal quarry in the said area as alleged by the second and third respondents. It is further submitted that in a writ petition filed by the petitioner, this Court directed the petitioner to appear before the first respondent on 14.03.2016 and directed the first respondent to dispose of the petitioner's appeal. Subsequently, the first respondent passed the impugned order dated 11.04.2016 cancelling the lease in a mechanical and arbitrary manner without considering the detailed reply filed by the petit