D. P. MOHAPATRA, J. ( 1 ) THE question that falls for determination in this case is whether an existing lessee for a major mineral can claim preferential treatment in the matter of grant of permission or lease for quarrying of a minor mineral found within the area leased to him. ( 2 ) THE petitioner Shri Saligram Khirwal was granted lease over an area of 482. 97 acres for carrying on mining operation for the major minerals. Toffa Lime Shell, Quartzite and Pyrophyllite valid for 10 years from 19-3-198l. Proper agreement was entered into between the petitioner and the State Govt. through the Collector of the district. The competent authority granted working permission to the petitioner on 17-1-83 to carry on mining operations over an area of 8. 75 acres. In the meanwhile by the impugned order passed on 17-9-88 the Mining Officer, Keanjhar (opp. party No. 3) has granted lease in favour of opp. party No. 5 Shri S. K. Jhalkarnayan for carrying on quarrying operations for Calc-Toffa, a minor mineral, over an area of 12. 94 acres out of the area leased out to the petitioner. Being aggrieved by such action the petitioner filed the application under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution with the prayer to quash the order No. 2128 dated 17-9-88 of the Mining Officer. ( 3 ) THE essence of the petitioner' challenge to the impugned order is that it was passed without following the procedure prescribed under the relevant Rules and also the principle of natural justice; he was neither intimated nor given the offer for inclusion of the minor mineral in his lease which privilege, according to the petitioner, he was entitled to have under the statutory provisions. It is the further contention of the petitioner that if the impugned order is allowed to stand it will create a very difficult, well-nigh impossible situation for him to work out the major minerals covered under the lease since the opp. party No. 5 is likely to intrude into the area and disturb the mining activities carried on by the petitioner. ( 4 ) IN the separate returns filed on behalf of the opp. parties 1, 3 and 4 and opp. party No. 5 the stand taken is that the area in question and the minerals are the properties of the State Govt. and it is open to the State Govt. ( 4 ) IN the separate returns filed on behalf of the opp. parties 1, 3 and 4 and opp. party No. 5 the stand taken is that the area in question and the minerals are the properties of the State Govt. and it is open to the State Govt. to settle any area or a portion of it with any party of its choice without affecting the right of the petitioner to win and excavate the major minerals covered under his lease agreement. It is the further contention of the opp. parties that the statute and the Rules make no provision for issue of notice to the petitioner before grant of permission for quarrying operation of minor mineral and therefore the order cannot be said to have been vitiated for want of such notice. ( 5 ) FROM the factual backdrop of the case discussed above it is manifest that the minerals in question are of two types, major mineral and minor mineral and they are governed by the two sets of statutory Rules, one framed by the Central Government and the other by the State Government. Both the sets of Rules are however framed in exercise of the powers vested under the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957. The Rule governing the major minerals is the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 framed by the Central Government and that governing minor minerals is the Orissa Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 1983 framed by the State Govt. It is submitted by the counsel for both parties that there is no specific provision in the aforementioned Rules expressly- dealing with a situation as in the present case. It is therefore necessary to construe and interpret the relevant provisions in the Rules and arrive at an appropriate procedure which will govern the present situation. ( 6 ) I shall consider the relevant provisions of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 first. Sub-rule (4) of Rule 24 provides that where an application for a mining lease for a mineral or minerals not specified in the existing mining lease is made for the whole or part of the area held under mining lease by a person other than the lessee, the State Govt. shall notify that fact by Registered post/acknowledgment due to the person who already holds mining lease for another mineral in the land applied for. shall notify that fact by Registered post/acknowledgment due to the person who already holds mining lease for another mineral in the land applied for. Under sub-rule (5) of rule 24 it is laid down that if on receipt of information referred to in sub-rule (4) from the State Govt. the lessee applied either for prospecting licence or mining lease for nowly discovered mineral or minerals within six months from the date of communication of the information by the State Govt. , the lessee shall be preferred in respect of such grant and if the lessee fails to can apply for prospecting licence or mining lease within six months, then this fact will be intimated to the applicant by the State Govt. and the State Govt. will consider the original application in accordance with the rules. (Emphasis Supplied ). Rule 27 provides that every mining lease shall be subject to the conditions mentioned in the Rule and such conditions shall be incorporated in every mining lease. C1. (a) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 27 provides that the lessee shall report to the State Govt. the discovery in the leased area of any mineral not specified in the lease, within sixty days of such discovery. ( 7 ) FROM the aforementioned provisions it is clear that when an area is covered under an existing lease granted for a specified mineral and any other mineral is found during subsistence of the lease, the lessee has a preferential claim over any other applicant for grant of mining lease for the new mineral. The Rule casts a duty on the lessee to notify about the discovery of the new mineral, obviously with a view to enable the State Govt. to take a decision regarding grant of mining lease for the said mineral. ( 8 ) COMING next to the Orissa Miner Minerals Concession Rules, 1983, the following are the relevant provisions : rule 3 (i) defines 'quarry lease' to mean a lease granted on tenure basis for a period not exceeding ten years for extraction, collection and/ or removal of minor minerals. Rule 8 prescribes the restrictions on grant of quarry leases. Rule 6 makes provision for filing of application for quarry lease and rule 8 for disposal of such applications. Rule 8 prescribes the restrictions on grant of quarry leases. Rule 6 makes provision for filing of application for quarry lease and rule 8 for disposal of such applications. Under the said Rule, every application for a quarry lease shall be disposed of by the Competent Authority within three months from the date of its receipt and if it is not disposed of within that period, the application shall be deemed to have been refused. Rule 9 which deals with priority is not very material for the present purpose since a situation like the one arising in the present case is not covered therein. Rule 20 enumerates the conditions of quarry lease. Clause (vi) of the said Rule provides that of any minor mineral not specified in the lease is discovered in the leased area, the lessee shall report it forthwith to the Competent Authority and the Director. The lessee shall not win or dispose of any such minor mineral without obtaining a proper lease or permit or permission of the Competent Authority in writing. If he fails to apply for a lease or permit to extract the newly discovered minor mineral within the three months from the date of discovery or if he declares his intention not to work the miner mineral, the Competent Authority may grant lease or permit in respect of that minor mineral to any other person after observing the procedure prescribed in the rules for the purpose. (Emphasis supplied ). The proviso to Cl. (vi) lays down that if the mineral discovered is not a minor mineral, the lessee shall not be entitled to any preference for the purpose of obtaining a lease for the new mineral by reason only of the lands being included in his earlier lease for extraction of minor mineral, under Cl. (xix) of Rule 20 it is provided that if any major mineral is found in the area in course of quarrying of minor minerals, the lease will be terminated without any compensation to the lessee. Rule 28 which makes provision for sale or disposal of minor minerals by public auction by the Competent Authority requires, inter alia, that the said authority shall make reasonable publicity for the auction sale so as to obtain the best possible price. Rule 28 which makes provision for sale or disposal of minor minerals by public auction by the Competent Authority requires, inter alia, that the said authority shall make reasonable publicity for the auction sale so as to obtain the best possible price. Under Rule 32 it is laid down inter alia, that if any minor mineral is found in an area leased out for major mineral, the minor mineral can be removed with permission of the Senior Mining Officer/mining Officer on a payment of royalty and other dues prescribed for the said minor mineral. Rule 34 mandates that no lessee shall despatch minor minerals from an area without any valid permit issued to him. ( 9 ) FROM the provisions discussed above, the position is manifest that an existing lessee for a major mineral is entitled to remove any newly found minor mineral in his area with permission of the Competent Authority. ( 10 ) ON a fair reading and harmonious construction of the provisions in Rules 24 (4) and 24 (5) of the Mineral Concession Rules and Rules 20 (vi) and 32 (1) of the Orissa Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 1983, the intention seems to be clear that in a case where there is an existing lessee for a mineral/ minerals and a new mineral is to be worked within the area included in his lease he has a preferential right to take lease / permission for working the new mineral, If the lessee finds the new mineral in the area and wants to raise it, he has to inform the Competent Authority and apply for taking lease for the same; if on the other hand the authority wants to grant a lease for the new mineral it has to notify the existing lessee and giving him the opportunity to apply for grant of lease/permission for working the said mineral. The question of considering the application of any other applicant will arise only if the existing lessee refuses to work the new mineral or fails to apply for lease / of the said mineral within the prescribed time. We therefore find it difficult to accept the contention raised on behalf of the opposite parties that the Rules do not mandate any notice to the petitioner, the existing lessee, before granting the mining lease to opp. party No. 5, admittedly a new comer. We therefore find it difficult to accept the contention raised on behalf of the opposite parties that the Rules do not mandate any notice to the petitioner, the existing lessee, before granting the mining lease to opp. party No. 5, admittedly a new comer. ( 11 ) EVEN assuming that the statutory Rules make no direct or specific provision for such notice, in our considered view, the principles of natural justice equally mandate such procedure. The Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana v. Ram Kishan, reported in AIR 1988 SC 1301 and that Court in the case of Bethal Mining Traders v. The State of Orissa, reported in 66 (1988) C. L. T. 285 and in the case of Shri J. C. Budharaja v. State of Orissa, reported in 68 (1989) C. L. T 509 have laid down that in the absence of anything to the contrary in the Rules, the principles of natural justice require notice to be issued to the party who is likely to be adversely affected by the action proposed to be taken. In the facts and circumstances of this case, there is hardly any scope for doubt that if a third party is granted lease for quarrying operation of the minor mineral over a portion of the land covered in the lease granted in favour of the petitioner, serious difficulties will arise on the part of the petitioner to carry on mining operations. Therefore, judged from any angle, the impugned action of the Mining Officer granting lease in favour of opp. party No. 3 is unsustainable. ( 12 ) ACCORDINGLY the writ application is allowed, the order of the Mining Officer, Keonjher (opp. party No. 3) for quarrying operation of the minor mineral, Calc-Toffa, is set aside and he or any other functionary of the State Government competent to deal with the matter will consider the matter of grant of lease/ permission in respect of the said minor mineral keeping in view the discussions in this judgment and in accordance with law. Since the matter has already been delayed, we will further direct that the exercise should be completed expeditiously, not exceeding three months. There will, however, be no order for costs of this proceeding. ( 13 ) A. PASAYAT, J. : -. I agree. Petition allowed.