The main legal point established is that the Collector must follow the mandatory provisions of Rule 30(26) before cancelling a quarry lease, and failure to do so violates the principles of natural justice.

S.K. Gangele, J.

Short question is involved in deciding the writ petition that whether the order passed by the Collector is within his power and authority and whether it is in violation of order dated 30.1.2012 passed in W.P.No.7535/2011. Respondents have also filed their reply. Hence, the petition is heard and disposed of finally.

2. The petitioner was granted a quarry lease of a land area 4.800 hectare of survey No. 360, 361, 362 and 365, situate at village Mau, District Gwalior under the provisions of M. P. Minor Mineral Rules, 1996 (hereinafter referred as the Rules of 1996) for a period of ten years from 22.3.2007 to 21.5.2017. He was granted NOC from the relevant departments. The petitioner established a crusher for converting minerals into B.T. Metal. He had received loans from the banks. The lease was cancelled by the Collector vide order dated 29.10.2011. He challenged the aforesaid order in a Writ Petition, which was registered as W.P. No. 7535/2011. Division Bench of this court vide order dated 30.01.2012 disposed of the writ petition with the following directions :-

(1) The impugned order, Annexure P-1, is hereby quashed subject to conditions that the petitioner shall ensure compliance of the directions mentioned in para 27 of this order and the Committee, as mentioned in the aforesaid para, shall ensure proper compliance and in the event of failure of the compliance, the department would be at liberty to take appropriate action.

(2) The M.P. Pollution Control Board has cancelled the No Objection Certificate granted in favour of the petitioner vide order dated 09.11.2011, Annexure R-6. That order has been passed on the ground that Collector had cancelled the quarry lease of the petitioner. This Court has already quashed the impugned order in regard to cancellation of quarry lease, hence the order passed by the Regional Authority of the M.P. Pollution Control Board, Annexure R-6 dated 9-11-2011 has became inoperative. However, the M.P. Pollution Control Board is at liberty to take action in accordance with law as mentioned in this order.

(3) No order as to costs.

3. The Collector granted permission to the petitioner to continue mining operations vide order dated 03.03.2012. A show cause notice was issued by the Collector on 2.4.2012 to the petitioner. By the aforesaid notice, the petitioner was directed to show cause that the petitioner installed water sprinkler system, however, the system was not sufficient to prevent air pollution and the petitioner had been using GDA roads for transportation of vehicles and he was also making deep hole blasting, hence, why the mining lease be not cancelled. The petitioner submitted reply to the aforesaid show cause notice. He denied the fact that the water sprinkler system was insufficient. He further pleaded that he constructed a tank capacity of 40,000 ltrs. The sprinklers were in operation all the time. Some tranches were also constructed so it was not possible to use roads of GDA Shatabdipuram. The petitioner further pleaded that he was not using deep hole blasting. He further submitted that he was willing to obey all the conditions, which may be imposed by the Collector.

4. In pursuance to the show cause notice, the Collector constituted a Committee to verify the facts mentioned by the petitioner in the reply. The Committee inspected the spot on 3.6.2012, prepared a panchnama and recorded following findings :-

(Vernacular matter omitted ...Ed.)

5. Another Committee was constituted by the Collector in December 2012 and it again inspected the mining sites and recorded following findings and submitted a memorandum to the Collector :-

(Vernacular matter omitted ...Ed.)

6. On the basis of findings and memorandum, the Collector passed impugned order of termination of lease on 24.12.2012.

7. Against the order of cancellation of lease, the petitioner filed a writ petition before this court, which was registered as W.P.No.14/2013. Writ Petition was withdrawn with liberty to file the