Short Note : 1. The petitioner applied for grant of a quarry lease on 5th June 1967 in Mouza Amaraiya, Tahsil Murwara, over an area of 9.04 acres. The application of the petitioner was partly allowed by the Director of Geology and Mining, by his order dated 29th November 1967. By this order, the petitioner was granted a lease for one acre of the above area. The petitioner was not satisfied with the order and he preferred an appeal before the State Government on 23rd December 1967. The appeal was fixed for hearing on 6th May 1968 and this date was intimated to the petitioner. But later on the hearing of the appeal was adjourned without fixing any date for further hearing. The appeal preferred by the petitioner was dismissed by the State Government by order passed on 10th September 1968. By this order, even the grant made in favour of the petitioner of one acre by the Director of Geology and Mining was also set aside. The petitioner then applied for review of this order under Rule 28 of the Madhya Pradesh Minor Minerals Rules, 1961. The petitioner was then heard on merits and the review application was rejected on 23rd January 1971. Held : The State Government should have heard the petitioner before disposing of the appeal. However, the defect was remedied when the petitioner filed the review application. Thereafter, the petitioner was heard on merits and the order dismissing the review application is a speaking order which gives reasons why, in the opinion of the State Government, quarry lease of the land applied for could not be granted to the petitioner. The grievance of the petitioner that he was not heard before the appeal was disposed of, does not, therefore, survive. 2. The second contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the State Government had no jurisdiction to set aside the grant of one acre made by the Director. Learned counsel points out that Rule 32-B, which empowers to State Government to revise any order passed by any subordinate authority, was inserted on 24th December 1971 and until this rule was inserted there was no power conferred on the State Government to set aside the orders of subordinate authority. To begin with, we were impressed with this argument. Learned counsel points out that Rule 32-B, which empowers to State Government to revise any order passed by any subordinate authority, was inserted on 24th December 1971 and until this rule was inserted there was no power conferred on the State Government to set aside the orders of subordinate authority. To begin with, we were impressed with this argument. But it appears to us that the petitioner himself was not inclined to accept the lease of only one acre. In the memo of appeal that the petitioner presented to the State Government, he stated that it would not be economical for him to work the area granted by the Director unless he was granted the quarry lease of the remaining area. The petitioner did not also execute the lease as required by rule 22 within three months and, therefore, the order granting the lease in terms of that rule was deemed to have been revoked. Further, the order of the Director granting the lease in favour of the petitioner was itself conditional. The condition was that the lease would be granted to the petitioner in case he was willing to accept the lease of one acre without insisting for the lease of the remaining area. The petitioner never accepted this condition. Petition dismissed.