The failure to obtain mandatory prior sanction renders a review order void.

1. This petition is directed against order dated 25-08-2014 passed by the Collector in purported exercise of power under R.59, reviewing earlier prayer for grant of lease and cancelling the lease of the petitioner.

2. The sole ground, on which, the impugned order assailed is that the impugned order is in excess of jurisdiction in as much as, before reviewing the order of grant of lease, the Collector has not sought prior sanction of the Director, as mandatorily required under R.59 of C.G. Minor Mineral Rules, 1996 (In short 'the Rules of 1996').

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the power of review conferred on the Director / Collector on its own motion, is circumscribed by preconditions. If the Collector proposes to review any order, he is required to first obtain the sanction in writing of the Director. This having not been done, the order is void as mandatory pre - condition of exercise of power has not been complied with. It is next submitted that in any case, no case for review is made out because sub rule (2) of R.59 provides that no order shall be reviewed except on the grounds provided for in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 . The grounds, on which, the lease has been cancelled reviewing earlier order of grant of lease, is based only on new objections.

4. On the other hand, learned State counsel firstly raised the objection with regard to maintainability by submitting that against the impugned order, the petitioner has remedy of filing an appeal before the Director. However, without filing the appeal, the petitioner has filed this petition. Next submission of learned counsel for the State is that the requirement of first obtaining sanction in writing of the Director has been substantially complied with in as much as earlier when lease was canceled and appeal was preferred, the appellate authority had an occasion to examine the grounds, on which, the cancellation was made. The appellate authority having found that the principles of natural justice were not followed, set aside the order of cancellation of lease and remanded the case to the Collector to pass appropriate orders on merits after affording opportunity of hearing. This, according to learned State counsel, amounts to granting sanction, therefore, after remand, the Collector was not required to again obtain the sanction of the Director / Appellate Authority. It is next contended that the after lease was granted in favour of the petitioner, the residents of the area, particularly the agriculturist raised serious objection that if the petitioner is granted lease for operating crusher machine, it will have an adverse impact on residents of the area and surrounding agriculture fields and crop. He next submits that earlier without proper information and under mistaken belief that lease was being granted for quarry, the Gram Panchayat had given its consent. Later on, when it was clarified that in fact, the activity proposed on the said land would be that of crushing of stone by machines which is comparatively much more polluting activity, the Gram Panchayat again sent its recommendation to cancel the lease. In view of the subsequent events, the power of review has been rightly exercised.

5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, in the considered opinion of this Court, this petition deserves to be allowed on the ground of violation of condition of first obtaining sanction in writing of the Director before passing the orde