ORDER Dixit, C. J.- 1. The facts and circumstances giving rise to this application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution are that in 1964 the petitioner, Banarsidas Bhanot, had filed an application under Article 226 for the issue of a writ of certiorari for quashing an Older dated the 3rd July 1963 of the Additional Collector, Jabalpur, rejecting the petitioner's application for the grant of a quarry lease in respect of his own certain Bhumiswami land and granting the lease in respect of that land to the non-applicant No. 1 Devishankar. The petitioner's application for the grant of quarry lease was made on 7th June 1963; the application of Devishankar was, however, presented earlier, namely, on 3rd June 1963. The applicant had also prayed for the issue of a writ of mandamus requiring the Collector, Jabalpur, to hear and dispose of in accordance with law the two applications made to him for the quarry lease. 2. The petitioner's application under Article 226 made in 1964 was allowed by a Division Bench of this Court on 21st August 1964 taking the view that the Additional Collector had not been empowered under section 26 of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957, to exercise the powers exercisable by the State Government under rules 5, 8 and 18 of the Madhya Pradesh Minor Mineral Rules, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules). That decision is reported in Banarsidas Vs. Devishankar, 1964 JLJ 611 = 1964 MPLJ 906. The application filed by Banarsidas for the grant of quarry lease being subsequent to the one made by Devishankar, the quarry lease could be granted only by the State Government in accordance with rule 12 (2) of the Rules which lays down that the State Government may for special reasons to be recorded grant a quarry lease to an applicant whose application was received later in preference to an applicant whose application was received earlier. On the scope and effect of this rule, the Division Bench, hearing the petitioner's first application under Article 226, said— "The second ground is based on rule 12 (2) of the Rules which reads : '(2) The State Government may for special reasons to be recorded grant a quarry lease to an applicant whose application was received later in preference to an applicant whose application was received earlier.' Having heard the counsel, we are inclined to think that the Collector, who exercises, by virtue of delegation, some of the powers of the State Government, is not obliged to submit every case in which a person, whose application was received later, claims preference for special reasons. If that were so, he would be rendered largely powerless to dispose of the applications duly received by him. It is true that the powers under rule 13 (2) have not been delegated, That being so, if the Collector thinks that there is a case for preferring anyone under that Rule, it would be open to him to submit the proceedings to the State Government for order. Further, if an applicant's claim for preference under the Rule is improperly disregarded by the Collector, it would be open to him to move the State Government for relief." Accordingly the order dated the 3rd July 1963 of the Additional Collector, Jabalpur, granting the lease to Devishankar was quashed, and the matter was remitted to the Collector, Jabalpur for a fresh disposal in accordance with law of the two applications for the grant of quarry lease. 3. In the proceedings, which were resumed before the Collector pursuant to this Court's direction in Banarsi Das Vs. Devi Shankar, 1964 JLJ 611 = 1964 MPLJ 906, the Collector made a recommendation to the Government that the lease should be granted to the applicant Banarsidas and as his application was later it could be granted only by the State Government under rule 12 (2) of the Rules. This recommendation of the Collector was accepted by the Government, and in January 1965 the Government passed an order in exercise of its powers under rule 12 (2) granting the quarry lease to the petitioner. On 17th December 1965, a lease in favour of the applicant was executed. 4. This recommendation of the Collector was accepted by the Government, and in January 1965 the Government passed an order in exercise of its powers under rule 12 (2) granting the quarry lease to the petitioner. On 17th December 1965, a lease in favour of the applicant was executed. 4. Thereafter, on 6th February 1965, the non-applicant Devishankar applied under rule 28 of the Rules for a review of the Government's order under rule 12 (2) granting the lease to Banarsi Das. This review petition was heard by the Minister of State for Revenue and Natural Resources, who, on 17th September 1965, "allowing" the review petition, set aside the order passed by the Government in January 1965 granting the lease to Banarsi Das and remanded the matter to the Collector for disposal in accordance with the M. P. Minor Mineral Rules, 1961. The petitioner now seeks a writ of certiorari for quashing the order dated the 17th September 1965 of the Government. 5. Shri Dabir, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, urged that the order dated the 17th September 1965 of the Government granting Devi Shanker's review petition was erroneous on the face of it as the review petition was allowed on an altogether erroneous construction of rule 12 (2) propounded by the Minister of State for Revenue and Natural Resources, which was utterly contrary to the view expressed by this Court in Banarsi Das vs. Devi Shankar, 1964 JLJ 611 = 1964 MPLJ 906 on the question of the scope and effect of that rule. It was also said that after allowing the review petition it was incumbent on the Minister of State for Revenue and Natural Resources to have heard the parties on merits before setting aside the Government's order passed in January 1965 granting the quarry lease to the petitioner and remanding the matter to the Collector for fresh disposal. 6. In our judgment, both contentions are substantial and must be given effect to. 6. In our judgment, both contentions are substantial and must be given effect to. It is manifest from the impugned order dated the 17th September 1965 that the review petition filed by Devi Shankar was granted on the reasoning that the Collector could not in proceedings for the grant of a quarry lease under the rules take any notice of rule 12 (2) and consequently, had no power to make any recommendation to the Government about the grant of a quarry lease to a person whose application was later in time; that, therefore the recommendation made by the Collector towords the end of 1964 and the order passed by the Government in January 1965 granting the quarry lease to the petitioner were null and void. In the impugned order, the Minister of slate for Revenue and Natural Resources observed- "... it is quite clear that the orders based on the report of the Collector are not according to law and hence they are set aside and the review petition of the applicant is allowed. As the application has been allowed on legal points, it is not necessary to go into the merit, of the case. The case is remanded to the Collector to dispose it of according to the rules contained in the M.P. Minor Mineral Rules, 1961." 7. Now, when one turns to the observations reproduced earlier of this Court in Benarsi Das Vs. Devi Shankar, 1964 JLJ 611 = 1964 MPLJ 906 on the scope and effect of rule 12 (2) it is plain that this Court laid down that though the powers under rule 12(2) have not been delegated to the Collector, yet if in any case the Collector thinks that the person who applied later for the grant of a quarry lease should be preferred for the grant, he can submit the proceedings to the State Government for orders with his recommendation; that it is in the discretion of the Collector whether or not to make a reference to the Government for orders under rule 12(2); and that he is not obliged to submit each and every case in which a person, whose application was received later, claims preference for special reasons. It does not require much elaboration to point out that the construction, which the Government placed on rule 12 (2) and which was made the basis of allowing Devi Shanker's review petition, was directly contrary to what this Court said in Banarsi Das Vs. Devi Shankar, 1964 JLJ 611 = 1964 MPLJ 906. The view expressed by this Court in Banarsi Das Vs. Devi Shankear, 1964 JLJ 611 = 1964 MPLJ 906 on rule 12(2) was clear, unambiguous and without any qualification. The observations of this Court in that case could have carried to anyone reading them and familiar with the normal usage of English language only one meaning namely that the Collector had the power of making a recommendation to the Government that a quarry lease be granted to a person in terms of rule 12(2). What this Court has said on the scope and effect of rule 12(2) is binding on all, including the Government, until that decision is overruled. It is therefore, bewildering to find that Devi Shankar's review petition was 'allowed, in flagrant disregard of this Court's pronouncement in' Banarsi Das Vs. Devi Shankar, 1964 JLJ 611 = 1964 MPLJ 906 and on a ground which was not even raised by Devi Shankar himself in his review petition a ground, which if we may say so, altogether eludes us. As held by this Court in Banarsi Das Vs. Devi Shankar, 1964 JLJ 611 = 1964 MPLJ 906 the Collector had the power of recommending to the Government that the quarry lease should be granted to Banarsi Dass in terms of rule 12(2). The Collector acted within his powers in so recommending Ranarsi Dass, and the order passed by the Government in January 1965 accepting the recommendation and granting a quarry lease to Banarsi Dass was legal and cannot, on any view of law, be a nullity. The Government's order dated the 17th September 1965, holding that the recommendation made by the Collector was not legal, and so also the order passed by the Government on the basis of that recommendation granting a lease to the petition was a nullity, cannot, therefore, be sustained. 8. The impugned order also suffers from another infirmity, namely, that it was passed without hearing the parties on merits. The various stages through which an application for review passes are now well-known. 8. The impugned order also suffers from another infirmity, namely, that it was passed without hearing the parties on merits. The various stages through which an application for review passes are now well-known. The several stages of procedure in a review petition were pointed out by Jenkins; C. J. in Vadilal Vs. Fulchand, ILR 30 Bom. 56 and also by Drake-Brockman, J. C. in Bhawani Prasad Vs. Laxmibai, 8 MPLC 22 = 15 NLR 65. If a review petition is not rejected summarily at the first hearing, then the Court grants a rule calling on the other side to show cause why the review should not be granted. The rule may then be discharged or made absolute after hearing the parties. If it is made absolute, the case is re-heard on merits. A decision under review is not and cannot be set aside or modified unless and until the rules is made absolute and the parties ale heard on the merits of the case. This procedure was not followed by the Government in allowing Devi Shankar's review petition. As is abundantly clear from the impugned order, the earlier order of Government granting the quarry-lease to the petitioner was set aside with• out hearing the parties on merits.. 9. For the above reasons, this petition is allowed and the order dated the 17th September 1965 of the Government allowing Devi Shankar's review petition is quashed with the result that the said review petition is dismissed. The proceedings, if any, initiated by the Collector pursuant to the Government's order dated the 17th September 1965 are also quashed. The petitioner shall have costs of this application from the respondents No. 1 Devi Shankar. Counsel's fee is fixed at Rs. 150/-. The outstanding amount of security deposit shall be refunded to the petitioner.