H. N. TILHARI, J. ( 1 ) BY this petition the petitioner has challenged the Order dated 20-3-1999 passed by the first respondent - Senior Geologist, whereby the first respondent has cancelled the petitioner's quarrying license for quarrying building stones in the land bearing Sy. No. 37/1, measuring 1 acre of Pandu Village of Dakshina Kannada District. ( 2 ) ACCORDING to the petitioner's case, the petitioner has been carrying on the quarrying work in that area since 1991 and his license was renewed from time to time. The petitioner had been working in the name of "sri Seethalakshmi Stone Crushing Industries. " According to the petitioner's case, the Southern Railway called for tenders for supply of 50 MM hard granite stones ballasts for the Uppala Mangalore dubling work and Bandar bye-pass line and the petitioner's tender was accepted for the work and work of the value of Rs. 63,39,100 was entrusted to the petitioner by order dated 10-10-1996. According to the petitioner, he had been quarrying the granite stones for supplying to the Southern Railway. The petitioner received a notice on 14-1-1999 from the Deputy Commissioner, Udupi for attending a meeting on 23-1-1999 in his office to consider the alleged complaint from the villagers of Padur and Herur villages. According to the petitioner's case of enquiry was held with reference to allegations. The petitioner's further case is that a notice was issued on 11-2-1999 by the first respondent to the petitioner to show cause why action should not be taken for violation of Rule 6 (2) of the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1994 and before the show cause notice was served, the Tahsildar under the order of the Deputy Commissioner forcibly stopped the working of the crusher and the petitioner could not be able to work the crusher in spite of his holding the license. The petitioner's case is that he had furnished the reply to the show cause notice and petitioner's representation denying the violation of Rule 6 (2) of the Rules is placed as Annexure "g" to the writ petition. According to the petitioner, by order dated 20-3-1999 the first respondent cancelled the petitioner's lease license under the direction of the Deputy Commissioner without indicating the nature of violation or violation of conditions if any of the lease by the petitioner. According to the petitioner, by order dated 20-3-1999 the first respondent cancelled the petitioner's lease license under the direction of the Deputy Commissioner without indicating the nature of violation or violation of conditions if any of the lease by the petitioner. Feeling aggrieved by the order of the first respondent dated 20-3-1999, the petitioner has come up before this Court by this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. ( 3 ) ON notice being issued, statement of objections has been filed on behalf of respondents and additional statement has also been filed. ( 4 ) THE respondents in their counter-affidavit have stated that nodoubt, notice had been issued to the petitioner for carrying on the quarrying operations and violation of Rule 6 (2) of the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1994. According to the respondents, the petitioner gave his reply on 25-2-1999 and in his reply he has stated that it is not possible to carry on the crushing operation of granite stone ballast without blasting, which would indicate that he was carrying on the blasting operation in violation of Rule 6 (2) of the Rules. Taking into consideration the violation of the Rules as also the public safety, the lease of the petitioner was cancelled. The respondents have further stated that the present writ petition is not maintainable as the petitoner had earlier filed W. P. No. 6372/1999 and the same has been got dismissed as withdrawn. In paragraph 5 it has been further mentioned that he has withdrawn the same with liberty to file a comprehensive writ petition. According to the respondents the order impugned does not suffer from any error of jurisdiction or error of law. ( 5 ) I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner Smt. Vyshali Hegde and the learned Government Pleader Sri Bharama Gowda. ( 6 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the order impugned had been passed without any due enquiry and application of mind to the relevant rule. Even the show cause notice does suffer from illegality and is one passed on non-application of mind to the Rule and it appears that the action is proceeded on assumption that blasting is prohibited while performing the operation of quarry. Even the show cause notice does suffer from illegality and is one passed on non-application of mind to the Rule and it appears that the action is proceeded on assumption that blasting is prohibited while performing the operation of quarry. The learned Counsel for the petitioner further submitted that no specific finding has been recorded as to how the petitioner has committed breach of Rule 6 (2) except taking the view that the petitioner has been doing blasting. The learned counsel contended that as such the order impugned suffers from error of law. ( 7 ) ON behalf of respondents, it has been contended by the learned Government Pleader that the petitioner has admitted that blasting has been done and once the petitioner admits that the blasting has been done and quarrying or crushing of the stones cannot be done without blasting, it amounts to the petitioner's admitting that he carried on quarrying operations with blasting and so the order impugned cannot be said to be illegal. The learned Government Pleader further contended that in the public interest and in the interest of public health, the petitioner's lease/license has been cancelled as well. ( 8 ) I have applied my mind to the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the parties. There is no doubt that the petitioner in his reply to show cause notice has stated that it is incorrect to state that blasting is prohibited under the terms of lease. It is impossible to carry on the producing of granite stone ballast without blasting. It is needless to state that power to cancel the lease is vested in the Competent Authority and as such they have to act independently. There has been no reason to issue show cause notice and he has been carrying on crushing work since 1991. From the perusal of show cause notice it appears that it is only based on the allegation that the petitioner was carrying on the quarrying of crushing of stones and was also doing blasting and according to the notice it is in violation of Rule 6 (2) of the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1994. The learned Government Pleader has contended that the activity of the petitioner was also in breach of condition No. 5 of the license/lease. The learned Government Pleader has contended that the activity of the petitioner was also in breach of condition No. 5 of the license/lease. The Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1994 have been framed by the Government of Karnataka in exercise of power under Section 15 of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 herein referred as Central Act No. 67 of 1957. Under Section 15 of the Act of 1957, the State Government has been conferred power to make Rules from regulating the grant of quarry lease, mining lease or Mineral concession in spite of mine and minerals and for the purpose connected therewith. ( 9 ) IT will be appropriate at this juncture to mention that under Section 4 (A) it has been provided that the Central Government as well as the State Government has been conferred power to make premature termination of prosecuting license and mining lease. But sub-section (3) of Section 4 (A) provides that no order making premature termination of prosecuting license or mining lease shall be made except after giving the holder of license or lease a reasonable opportunity of being heard. In the matter of giving reasonable opportunity of being heard, it is necessary that the charge must be very specific and clear, which a party is required to reply and explain. And when the party has given a reply and is heard, the authority passing the order is expected to apply its mind to the facts pleaded, materials placed and contentions heard. Rule 6 of the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1994 provides for general conditions of quarrying lease and license. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 6 reads as under:"no person shall carry on or allow to carry on any quarrying operations within a distance of fifty meters if no blasting is involved and two hundred metres if blasting is involved from the boundary of any railway line, reservoir, tank-bund, canal or other public works and public structures or any public road, or building. The holder of a quarrying lease or licence shall also abide by such conditions as the Competent Authority may impose to quarry on quarrying operations in the vicinity of the aforesaid buildings or places. The holder of a quarrying lease or licence shall also abide by such conditions as the Competent Authority may impose to quarry on quarrying operations in the vicinity of the aforesaid buildings or places. "paragraph 5 of the terms and conditions of the lease/licence contained in Part-III of the terms and conditions reads as under:"the lessee/licensee shall not work or carry on or allow to be worked or carried on any quarrying operations at or to any point within a distance of 50 metres if no blasting is involved from the boundary of any railway line except with the previous written permission of the Railway Administration concerned or from the boundaries of reservoir, canal, high tension electric line, or other public works, or buildings, or inhabited site, except with the previous permission of Government or any other officer authorised by the Government in this behalf and otherwise than in accordance with such instructions, restrictions and conditions and either general or special which may be attached to such permission. The said distances of 50 metres or 200 metres shall be measured in the case of railway, reservoir or canal horizontally from the outer toe of the bank of the outer edge of the cutting as the case may be and of building horizontally from the plinth thereof. " ( 10 ) A perusal of Rule 6 (2) or paragraph 5 of the terms contained under Part-III of the licence per se reveals that it does not bar the blasting if it is necessary for carrying on of the crushing or quarrying work. What is provided by Rule 6 (2) or paragraph 5 of the terms and conditions is regulation of quarrying operations and it provides that if quarrying operations are to be carried on without any ballasts, then the quarrying operations shall not be carried on within a distance of 50 metres from the boundary of any railway line or from the boundary of reservoir, canal, high tension electric line or other public works, or buildings, or inhabited sites except with the previous permission of the authorities referred to in the Rule i. e. , in case of railways, the quarrying operations within 50 metres can be done with the permission of the Railway Administration while in matter of others, with the permission of the Government or Officer authorised by the Government. Similarly, if the quarrying or crushing work is to be carried on and it involves or it is likely to involve blasting then it is not to be carried on within a distance of 200 metres from the boundary of the railway line or from the boundary of reservoir, canal, etc. , i. e. , to be measured from the building concerned or railway line concerned. Except with necessary permission of authority Competent. Therefore, the charge or notice should be very specific and clear. As I mentioned earlier, the blasting by itself, if necessary for carrying on the work of crushing stones or work of quarrying is not prohibited but is regulated that it is not to be carried within 200 metres from the railway boundary or other public works, or buildings. etc. except with permission of authority competent referred in the Rule 6 itself. ( 11 ) IN the present case, there is no such specific charge. Vaguely saying that Rule 6 (2) is violated is not sufficient. Further, the order impugned does not show that any such finding has been recorded by the first respondent that the petitioner was carrying on quarrying work and crushing work involving blasting within 200 metres place from the public buildings, etc. , and from the record it appears that there has been no buildings within 300 metres even from the place of quarrying being done with blasting. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the order passed by the first respondent is per se illegal and suffers from error of law as it appears to have been passed only at the instance of the Deputy Commissioner without applying to the question of violation of Rule 6 (2) as alleged on merits and on facts. Such questions cannot be decided without recording the material evidence on that matter and giving an opportunity to the party to cross examine or to challenge the veracity of the evidence/material placed or to be placed. ( 12 ) IN the present case, as I am of the opinion that the order impugned suffers from jurisdictional error or error of law, the writ petition deserves to be allowed and is hereby allowed. The order impugned dated 20-3-1999 contained in Annexure "h" is hereby quashed. ( 12 ) IN the present case, as I am of the opinion that the order impugned suffers from jurisdictional error or error of law, the writ petition deserves to be allowed and is hereby allowed. The order impugned dated 20-3-1999 contained in Annexure "h" is hereby quashed. The respondents are directed not to interfere with the petitioner's carrying on quarrying work even if it involves blasting provided, the work is carried on following the Rules and the terms of licence lease. Thus, writ petition is allowed with costs. Let above directions be issued to respondents. --- *** --- .