Judgment :- The Order of the Court was as follows : Invoking Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner-society herein has filed the present writ petition seeking for a writ of certiorari to call for the records of the respondent in R.C.No. 121673/82 Q. 4, dated 24-9-91, and to quash the same. 2. In support of the writ petition, the petitioner-society herein has filed an affidavit wherein they have narrated all the facts and circumstances that forced them to file the present writ petition and requested this Court to allow the writ petition as prayed for. Per contra, though no counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent, the learned Govt. Advocate appearing for the respondent argued the matter and pleaded that the writ petition has to be dismissed for want of merits. 3. Heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the parties. I have perused the contents of the affidavit and all other relevant documents available on record in the form of typed set of papers. I have also taken into consideration the various points raised by the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties during the course of their arguments. 4. In the above circumstances of the case, the only point that arises for consideration in this case is, as to whether there are any valid grounds to allow this writ petition or not. 5. The brief facts of the case of the petitioner, as seen from the affidavit are as follows : The petitioner herein is a Ceylon Repatriates Labourers Welfare and Service Society registered on 26-9-83. Originally one Natesan Paulraj was the President of the Society and he had been removed from the Presidentship with effect from 10-4-91 and afterwards, the present President Palabishekam came in his place. The Ex. President Natesan Paulraj is not holding any office in the society either as a Member or as a Committee member of the Society. The stone Quarry No. 2, situated in S. No. 139 of Thalakkananchery village, Saidapet Taluk was originally leased to the society for a period of 3 years from Faslis 1393 to 1395. This lease was granted to them under Rule 10 of the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral concession Rules 1959, as they were entitled to preferential consideration as a Ceylon Repatriate Society. The lease granted to them had expired on 30-6-86. This lease was granted to them under Rule 10 of the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral concession Rules 1959, as they were entitled to preferential consideration as a Ceylon Repatriate Society. The lease granted to them had expired on 30-6-86. On 12-11-86 the Collector granted renewal of the lease up to 30-6-1989 in his proceedings RC. 121673/82 Q. 4 dated 12-11-1986. During the period of their lease, there has been no complaint in the matter of their working of the lease and they have been strictly complying with all the directions of the authorities, in respect of the period of lease granted to them earlier to 30-6-91, there was delay in the issuance of the orders granting them lease and also an account of the stay orders granted by the authorities, they could not operate the quarry for the full period. They could not operate for nearly 101/2 months in the lease period. Therefore they have approached the authorities for granting them permission for operating the quarry for the period to which they were not able to operate for no fault of theirs. In similar cases, the authorities have allowed the lessees to operate the quarry for the period in respect of which they were not allowed to operate the quarry and similarly on the same lines they have requested for extension to them. Those applications were not disposed of and the matter was kept pending. Hence they filed W.P. No. 8973 of 89 and this Court by order dated 10-7-89 directed the District Collector to consider their case on merits. Thereafter in the light of the directions of the Court dated 10-7-1989 and made in W.P. No. 8973/89, the Collector passed orders on 31-7-1991 granting them permission to operate the quarry for a period of 6 months from the date of issue of the order subject to the condition that they strictly comply with the directions recommendations of the Expert Committee as contained in para 5 and 6 of page 33 and in para 3 of the page 36 of the said report. After this order, the petitioners here have been operating the quarry without any complaints from anybody. After this order, the petitioners here have been operating the quarry without any complaints from anybody. That being so, they had suddenly received an order dated 24-9-1991 in R.C. 121673/82 Q. 4 from the Collector of Chengalpattu MGR District, the respondent herein stating that the permission granted to their society to quarry blue metal in S. No. 139 (stone Quarry No. II) of Thalakkanancherry village for the period of six months from 31-7-91 is hereby revoked with immediate effect as mentioned in the manual. It is contended by the petitioners that the impugned order of the Collector dated 24-9-1991 is wholly without jurisdiction and the petitioner has no other alternative or efficacious remedy except to approach this Court with this petition. It is their case that the Collector has no jurisdiction to revoke the lease granted for 6 months which he had granted earlier by order dated 31-7-91 and the revocation order without notice to the petitioner and without issuance of a show cause notice is wholly illegal. They contend that the order is violative of all principles of natural justice. It is their claim that since no show cause notice was issued to the petitioner, before the impugned order was passed, the order is liable to be set aside on this short ground alone. They also contend that even in the order impugned, no illegality or impropriety committed by the petitioner is mentioned. It is also their case that the Collector, in the impugned order has stated that the lease is being revoked with immediately effect as mentioned in the manual. What manual is being referred is not known. There is no manual requires that a lease which had been validly granted can be revoked. According to the petitioners, even the order dated 31-7-1991 which granted them lease for a period of six months, was done only in compliance with the earlier directions of this Court in W.P. No. 8973/89 dated 10-7-89. Further during the earlier lease period between faslis 1393 to 1395 the petitioner did not operate for 101/2 months and the petitioner had therefore requested that their case should be considered, and as no orders were passed, the petitioner came to this Court and this Court directed that the petitioner may be considered and suitable orders may be passed. Further during the earlier lease period between faslis 1393 to 1395 the petitioner did not operate for 101/2 months and the petitioner had therefore requested that their case should be considered, and as no orders were passed, the petitioner came to this Court and this Court directed that the petitioner may be considered and suitable orders may be passed. It is their grievance that even though the said order was passed as earlier on 10-7-89, two years thereafter, the six months' lease was granted while they had asked for 101/2 months. Further this Court had only directed that if any fresh lease are to be granted that should be in accordance with the recommendations of the expert committee. They also contend that there is no complaint that they have violated any of the directions and that therefore without any such complaint, there is no scope at all to modify or interfere with the said order. Their grievance is that the Collector has acted wholly without jurisdiction in revoking the permission granted authorising them to quarry for 6 more months from 31-7-91. It is their categorical contention that the impugned order has been passed without notice is a nullity and the order is liable to be set aside on the short ground alone. 6. Having seen the entire material available on record and from the facts and circumstances of this case and also from the claims and counter claims made by the parties, the following are admitted facts. Originally the land in question was leased to this petitioner society for a period of 3 years and as that period was expired on 30-6-85, on 12-11-86, the Collector granted renewal of the lease up to 30-6-89 by his proceedings dated 12-11-86 and in respect of the period of lease granted to them earlier to 30-6-91, there was delay in the issuance of the orders granted them lease and also on account of the stay orders granted by the authorities, they could not operate the quarry for the full period. They could not operate the quarry nearly 101/2 months in the lease period. Therefore, the petitioner society herein approached the authorities for granting them permission for operating the quarry for the period to which they were not able to operate for no fault of theirs. They could not operate the quarry nearly 101/2 months in the lease period. Therefore, the petitioner society herein approached the authorities for granting them permission for operating the quarry for the period to which they were not able to operate for no fault of theirs. Even though in similar cases such request was accepted by the authorities, their applications were not disposed of and the matter was kept pending. Thereafter, the petitioner society filed a writ petition and got an order from this Court to consider their case on merits. Ultimately, in the light of the directions of this Court made in W.P. No. 8973/89 the Collector passed orders on 31-7-91 granting them permission to operate the quarry for a period of 6 months from the date of issue of the order subject to the condition that they strictly comply with the directions/recommendations of the Expert Committee. It is significant to note that after the said order the petitioner society has been operating the quarry without any complaints from anybody. That being so, by the impugned order dated 24-9-91 the respondent revoked the permission granted to them with immediate effect, it is significant to note that the lease in question was only for 6 months and that was also granted to the petitioner after approaching this Court twice. That apart the said lease is not a fresh lease or renewed lease. But that was granted to them as they could not operate the quarry nearly for 101/2 months in the previous lease period. Further the said lease in question was granted to them specifically subject to the condition that the petitioner society strictly comply with the directions/recommendations of the Expert Committee. In such a case, if there is any complaint that there is any violations of those conditions on the part of the petitioner society, there is justification for revoking the said permission granted to them. But in the impugned order there is no such mention that the petitioner society has violated any of the conditions on which the lease was granted and that therefore, the respondent is revoking the said grant lease with immediate effect. That apart, even if it is so, the respondent cannot revoke such permission without giving opportunity to the petitioner to explain their stand and defence. That apart, even if it is so, the respondent cannot revoke such permission without giving opportunity to the petitioner to explain their stand and defence. Therefore it is rightly contended by the petitioner society that the impugned revocation is absolutely without notice to the petitioner and also without issuance of a show cause notice. Therefore, it is the categoric contention of the petitioner that the impugned order is violative of the principles of natural justice. I see every force in the said contention of the petitioner society. Because it is not the case of the respondent that before passing the impugned order, any notice was given to the petitioner or that any show cause notice was issued. Further they have not even filed any counter to justify their action. Even in the order impugned, no illegality or impropriety committed by the petitioner is mentioned. Therefore as rightly contended by the petitioner society, the impugned order is violative of all principles of natural justice and the impugned order is liable to be set aside on this short ground alone. 7. Therefore, for all the aforesaid reasons and in the facts and circumstances of this case and in view of my above discussions with regard to the various aspects of this case, I am of the clear view that the petitioner society herein has clearly made out a case in their favour that the impugned order is a nullity and is absolutely in violation of the principles of natural justice and since no show cause notice was issued to the petitioner before the impugned order, the impugned order is liable to be set aside on the said ground alone. Thus the writ petition succeeds and the same has to be allowed as prayed for. 8. In the result, the writ petition is allowed as prayed for. No costs. Consequently the impugned order is hereby set aside. W.M.P. 20780/91 is dismissed. Petition allowed.