ORDER V. Gopala Gowda, J.—For the reasons stated in the application, I.A. No. II is allowed permitting the applicants to come on record as Petitioners. 2. The Petitioners in this writ petition have questioned the legality and validity of the order at Annexure-A dated 25.9.2000 passed by the first Respondent in R.P. Nos. 201 and 202 of 2000 and have also sought for issuance of writ of mandamus directing the first Respondent not to grant any licence for removal of sand in the River Papagni urging various facts and legal contentions. 3. The impugned order is passed by the first Respondent after setting aside the order passed by the Competent Authority in exercise of his power under Rule 83(1) of the Karnataka Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 1994 (for short "KMMC Rules") in cancelling the quarrying lease held by the Respondents 2 and 3, on the basis of the report dated 29.8.2000 submitted by the Deputy Director (MA) wherein he had reported that he had inspected the area on 26.8.2000 along with the Geologist and Assistant Geologist and found that the adjoining area of the said river of Andhra Pradesh State has been auctioned for removal of sand and the entire sand had been removed by them belonging to Andhra Pradesh Area. This order has been challenged by the Petitioners in this petition though they are not parties before the first Respondent-revisional authority contending that at their instance the Competent Authority had passed the order who is the party Respondent before the first Respondent. It is also further contended by the learned Counsel for the Petitioners Sri Gangi Reddy, that the revisional order impugned in this petition being a quasi-judicial exercise of power by the said Authority, it is required for him to decide the case independently applying his mind to the facts of the case; with reference to the legal contentions urged on behalf of the parties. A perusal of the impugned order in this petition would clearly establishes that the order is not passed by the first Respondent independently on the contentions urged by the Respondents 2 and 3 and the records of the competent authority in the proceedings before him. In support of the submission of the learned Counsel for the Petitioners, he has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Apex court reported in AIR 1951 SCR 803 (The Commissioner of Police, Bombay Vs. In support of the submission of the learned Counsel for the Petitioners, he has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Apex court reported in AIR 1951 SCR 803 (The Commissioner of Police, Bombay Vs. Gordhandas Bhanji); C.S. Rowjee and Others Vs. Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, AIR 1964 SC 962 . It is further contended by the learned Counsel for the Petitioners that they have complained to the competent authority stating that Respondents 2 and 3 have violated the additional Condition No. 2 to the Quarrying Lease produced by the contesting Respondents at Annexure-R2 wherein licencees have carried out their quarrying operations causing damage to the agricultural lands, public structures and the borewells which are situated on both sides of the river and as such the fundamental rights guaranteed to the Petitioners under Articles 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution have been seriously affected and that therefore, the competent authority was perfectly justified in cancelling the lease by passing his order which order has been wrongly interfered with by the first Respondent in exercise of his revisional jurisdiction and power therefore, it is contended by the learned Counsel for the Petitioners that they are aggrieved persons of the impugned order and therefore Respondents 2 and 3 should have made those persons as party Respondents before the first Respondent, but with a deliberate intention they have not been impleaded, though they have not been impleaded and since the order of the Competent Authority has been set aside by the first Respondent, they have filed this writ petition questioning the legality and validity of the said order in this petition. In support of this contention the learned Counsel has placed much reliance upon the decision of the Apex Court reported in M.C. Mehta Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, AIR 1988 SC 1037 at paragraph 4. Reliance is also placed upon the decision of the Apex Court in AIR 2000 SCW 1854 (M.C. Mehta Vs. Kamal Nath and Ors.) in support of the proposition that any disturbance of basic environment elements, namely air, water and soil is hazardous to life under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 4. Reliance is also placed upon the decision of the Apex Court in AIR 2000 SCW 1854 (M.C. Mehta Vs. Kamal Nath and Ors.) in support of the proposition that any disturbance of basic environment elements, namely air, water and soil is hazardous to life under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 4. Sri B. Veerappa, learned Counsel for the impleading applicants in I.A. No. II submitted that they are owners of the agricultural lands and have drilled the borewells in their agricultural lands to lift the water and irrigate their lands for carrying on with their agricultural occupation which is their only source of livelihood guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and since they are also aggrieved persons they wanted to come on record as Petitioners to support the case of the Petitioners and in support of their case, he has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Devaki Nandan Pandey Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, AIR 1987 SC 359 at paragraphs 18 and 19. 5. The contesting Respondents 2 and 3 have filed their detailed statement of objections along with documents as per Annexures-R1 to R13. On behalf of first Respondent, statement of counter is filed justifying the order passed by the first Respondent. Sri D.L.N. Rao, learned Counsel placing reliance upon the report submitted by the Regional Director dated 11.3.2001 submitted that the rights of neither the Petitioners nor the agriculturists including the impleaded Respondent in and around the quarrying operation area from removing the sand has been affected; that the said report has been submitted by the competent officer as per the interim direction of this Court after the spot inspection as such it has to be accepted and this petition has to be rejected. He further contended that the Petitioners are not the aggrieved parties of the impugned order passed by the first Respondent for the reason that they did not question the lease deed as per Annexure-R2 executed in favour of Respondents 2 and 3 by the Competent Authority and that therefore, this writ petition is not maintainable and therefore he had submitted that the same is liable to be rejected on this ground also, that the reliance placed upon the decision of the Apex Court reported in AIR 1988 SC 2000 referred to supra by the learned Counsel for the Petitioners are all the decisions rendered by the Apex Court with reference to the public interest litigation and that if at all it is the case of the Petitioners that this is a public interest litigation, the matter has to be referred to the Division Bench. Further, it is urged that the first Respondent based on the report of the Deputy Director (MA) has recorded a finding that the water source or the agricultural operations of the farmers near the area in question will not be affected which finding of fact by the first Respondent need not be interfered with by this Court in exercise of its extraordinary and supervisory jurisdiction and that the report submitted by the Regional Director has been submitted in pursuant to the directions issued by this Court vide its order dated 28.11.2000 has to be accepted and therefore the learned Counsel has urged that, the petition is liable to be rejected. 6. After hearing the rival contentions urged on behalf of the parties, I have examined the lease deed, the impugned order and the documents produced by the parties. The additional condition No. 2 incorporated in the lease deed as per Annexure-R2 produced by the contesting Respondents reads as hereunder: The quarry operations are to be carried out without causing any disturbance or damages to the agricultural land, public structures, infiltration wells etc., situated on both sides of the river and safety margin should be maintained. The additional condition No. 2 incorporated in the lease deed as per Annexure-R2 produced by the contesting Respondents reads as hereunder: The quarry operations are to be carried out without causing any disturbance or damages to the agricultural land, public structures, infiltration wells etc., situated on both sides of the river and safety margin should be maintained. It is an undisputed fact that the Petitioners have submitted a petition to the competent authority complaining that by executing the lease deeds in favour of the contesting Respondents to remove the sand from the river in question, the farmers who have drilled their borewells and carrying on with their agricultural operations and eking out their livelihood have been affected as the water level in the area in question has been going down on account of removal of sand in pursuant to the lease deed executed by the Department and it has become very difficult for them to pump water and irrigate their lands, thereby the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 21 are affected. Based on the said complaint of the Petitioners, the competent authority after having satisfied that there is violation of additional Condition No. 2 of the lease deed by the contesting Respondents has passed the order cancelling the lease deed executed in favour of the Respondents 2 and 3 to remove the sand; that order has been challenged before the first Respondent by them; the first Respondent was required to examine as to at whose instance the order came to be passed by the Competent Authority and whether the same requires interference by him in exercise of his revisional power under Rule 53 of the KMMC Rules. The Revisional Authority is conferred power of revision under Rule 53 of the KMMC Rules which reads thus: 53. Revision.-(1) Any person aggrieved by an order of the Competent Authority not above the rank of Additional Director may, within sixty days of the date of communication of such order apply in Form-RV to the Controlling Authority for revision of such order. Revision.-(1) Any person aggrieved by an order of the Competent Authority not above the rank of Additional Director may, within sixty days of the date of communication of such order apply in Form-RV to the Controlling Authority for revision of such order. (2) Any person aggrieved by an order of the competent authority above the rank of Additional Director may, within sixty days from the date of communication of such order apply in FORM-RV to the State Government for revision of such order: Provided that the Controlling Authority or the State Government, as the case may be, may, if he or it is satisfied that the applicant had sufficient cause for not making the application in time, entertain such application if it is made within a period of thirty days from the date of expiry of the aforesaid period of sixty days. (3) An application under Sub-rule (1) or (2) shall be accompanied by a treasury challan for having paid a fee of rupees three hundred. (4) On receipt of an application for revision under sub-rules (1) and (2), the Controlling Authority, or as the case may be, the State Government, may call for the records of the case and pass such order thereon as he or it may deem fit: Provided that no order under this rule shall be made to the prejudice of any person unless he has been given a reasonable opportunity of being heard. In view of the proviso to Rule 53(4) and in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Gullapalli Nageswara Rao and Others Vs. Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation and Another, AIR 1959 SC 308 , the nature of the power conferred upon the first Respondent is that of quasi-judicial and as such the first Respondent was required to determine the rights of the parties independently on the basis of the material evidence placed before the Competent Authority who has passed the order cancelling the lease deed on the complaint of the Petitioners. In the instant case, the first Respondent has not exercised his power independently keeping in view the allegations and grounds urged in the complaint of the Petitioners and the findings recorded by the Competent Authority, but has passed the order on the basis of the report submitted by the Deputy Director who had inspected the area along with the Geologist and Assistant Geologist on 26.8.2000. Therefore, the reliance placed upon the judgments of the Apex Court in AIR 1951 SCR 803 & C.S. Rowjee and Others Vs. Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, AIR 1964 SC 962 are applicable to the facts of the case. It is a well established principle of law that the authority upon whom the power is conferred upon must independently apply its mind and determine the rights of the parties in exercise of its discretionary power by that Authority alone on the basis. In the instant case, the power has been exercised by the first Respondent and he had accepted the report of the Deputy Director of Land Records and without applying its mind to the rival contentions of the parties and the findings recorded by the Competent Authority, which decision of the Revisional Authority is contrary to the law declared by the Apex Court in the cases referred to supra. As such, the impugned order is liable to be quashed. 7. The next question for consideration of this Court is as to whether the fundamental rights of the Petitioners have been affected, eventhough they had not challenged the lease deeds executed in favour of Respondents 2 and 3 by the department for removal of sand before the Revisional Authority after execution of the same in their favour by the competent authority and this Court can entertain this petition and interfere with the impugned order. It is necessary for this Court to keep in mind that upon the State Government and all statutory corporations the fundamental duties incorporated under the provisions of the Constitution of India of Part (IV)A wherein it is stated that it is the fundamental duty of every citizen to protect and improve the natural environment including forest, lakes, rivers and wild life and to have compassion for living creatures shall be protected by discharging their fundamental duties as provided under the Constitution is the constitutional philosophy in the larger interest of public. Article 51A(g) of the Constitution of India came up for consideration and its interpretation before the Supreme Court in number of public interest litigations. The Apex Court in M.C. Mehta Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, AIR 1988 SC 1037 at paragraph (4) and Judgment of the Apex Court reported in Devaki Nandan Pandey Vs. Article 51A(g) of the Constitution of India came up for consideration and its interpretation before the Supreme Court in number of public interest litigations. The Apex Court in M.C. Mehta Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, AIR 1988 SC 1037 at paragraph (4) and Judgment of the Apex Court reported in Devaki Nandan Pandey Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, AIR 1987 SC 359 at paragraphs 18 and 19 has laid down the law which relevant portion of the judgments are is extracted as hereunder: 4. Before proceeding to consider the facts of this case it is necessary to state a few words about the importance of and need for protecting our environment. Article 48-A of the Constitution provides that the State shall endeavour to protect and improve the environment and to safeguard the forests and wild life of the country. Article 51-A of the Constitution imposes as one of the fundamental duties on every citizen the duty to protect and improve the natural environment including forests, lakes, rivers and wild life and to have compassion for living creatures. The proclamation adopted by the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment which took place at Stockholm from 5th to 16th June, 1972 and in which the Indian delegation led by the Prime Minister of India took a leading role runs thus: 1. Man is both creature and moulder of his environment which gives him physical sustenance and affords him the opportunity for intellectual, moral, social and spiritual growth. In the long and tortuous evolution of the human race on this planet a stage has been reached when through the rapid acceleration of science and technology, man has acquired the power, to transform his environment in countless ways and on an unprecedented scale. Both aspects of man's environment, the natural and man made, are essential to his well being and to the enjoyment of basis human rights. Even the right to life itself. 3. ...A point has been reached in history when we must shape our actions throughout the world with a more prudent care for their environmental consequences. Through ignorance or indifference we can do massive and irreversible harm to the earthly environment on which our life and well-being depend. Even the right to life itself. 3. ...A point has been reached in history when we must shape our actions throughout the world with a more prudent care for their environmental consequences. Through ignorance or indifference we can do massive and irreversible harm to the earthly environment on which our life and well-being depend. Conversely, through fuller, knowledge and wiser action, we can achieve for ourselves and our posterity a better life in an environment more in keeping with human needs and hopes. There are broad vistas for the enhancement of environmental quality and the creation of good life. What is needed is an enthusiastic but calm state of mind and intense but orderly work. For the purpose of attaining freedom in the world of nature man must use knowledge to build in collaboration with nature a better environment. To defend and improve the human environment for present and future generations has become an imperative goal for mankind a goal to be pursued together with and in harmony with, the established and fundamental goals of peace and world-wide economic and social development. To achieve this environmental goal will demand the acceptance of responsibility by citizens and communities and by enterprises and institutions at every level, all sharing equitably in common efforts. Individuals in all walks of life as well as organizations in many fields, by their values and the sum of their actions, will shape the world environment of the future. Local and National Governments will bear the greatest burden for large scale environmental policy and action within their jurisdictions. International co-operation is also needed in order to raise resources to support the developing countries carrying out their responsibilities in this field. A growing class of environmental problems, because they are regional or global in extent or because they affect the common international realm, will require extensive co-operation among nations and action by international organizations in the common interest. The conference calls upon the Governments and peoples to exert common efforts for the preservation and improvement of the human environment, for the benefit of all the people and for their posterity.... The Supreme Court in the case of Devaki Nandan Pandey Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, AIR 1987 SC 359 has clearly laid down the law with reference to Articles 32 and 51A(g) at Paragraphs 18 and 19 as follows: 18. The Supreme Court in the case of Devaki Nandan Pandey Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, AIR 1987 SC 359 has clearly laid down the law with reference to Articles 32 and 51A(g) at Paragraphs 18 and 19 as follows: 18. Governments-both at the Centre and in the State must realise and remain cognizant of the fact that the stake involved in the matter is large and far reaching. The evil consequences would last long. Once that unwanted situation sets in, amends or repairs would not be possible. The greenery of India, as some doubt, may perish and the Thar desert may expand its limits. 19. Consciousness for environmental protection is of recent origin. The United Nations Conference on World Environment held in Stockholm in June 1972 and the follow up action thereafter is spreading the awareness. Over thousands of years men had been successfully exploiting the ecological system for his sustenance but with the growth of population the demand for land has increased and forest growth has been and is being cut down and man has started encroaching upon Nature and its assets. Scientific developments have made it possible and convenient for man to approach the places which were hitherto beyond his ken. The consequences of such interference with ecology and environment have now come to be realised. It is necessary that the Himalayas and the forest growth on the mountain range should be left uninterfered with so that there may be sufficient quantity of rain. The top soil may be preserved without being eroded and the natural setting of the area may remain intact. We had commended earlier to the State of Uttar Pradesh as also to the Union of India that afforestation activity may be carried out in the whole valley and the hills. We have been told that such activity has been undertaken. We are not oblivious of the fact that natural resources have got to be tapped for the purposes of social development but one cannot forget at the same time that tapping of resources have to be done with requisite attention and care so that ecology and environment may not be affected in any serious way' there may not be any depletion of water resources and long-term planning must be undertaken to keep up the national wealth. It has always to be remembered that these are permanent assets of mankind and are not intended to be exhausted in one generation. 7. Though the aforesaid legal principle has been laid down in the aforesaid cases after interpretation of the fundamental duty specified under Article 51A(g) of the Constitution which part of the Constitution was inserted by way of forty second Amendment to the Act 1976, the Department of Mines and Geology keeping in view the public interest and Article 51A(g) has incorporated Additional Condition No. 2 to the lease deed executed in favour of the contesting Respondents which is extracted supra. Therefore, the Petitioners and also the impleading applicants who are agriculturists carrying on their agricultural operations have got fundamental rights under Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, this Court has to keep in its mind in view of the fundamental duties required to be discharged by the citizens and the State. The said important provision of the Constitution has been interpreted by the Apex Court of India in the cases referred to supra and held that the fundamental rights of the Petitioners and the impleading applicants have been affected by removing the sand from the river. In this connection, this Court has to examine the report submitted by the Regional Director is based on the facts. The competent authority has recorded a finding on careful examination of the complaint of the Petitioners stating that their rights and other farmers are affected after conducting spot inspection. In the instant case, the Regional Director report is not in conformity with he directions of this Court and does not reflect the correct true facts and the same is not in conformity with law. Therefore, the grievance of the Petitioners that the Regional Director and others have not complied with the memo of instructions given to them. Therefore, the said report need not be accepted by this Court. Therefore, the grievance of the Petitioners that the Regional Director and others have not complied with the memo of instructions given to them. Therefore, the said report need not be accepted by this Court. The fact finding authority namely the Competent Authority has recorded a finding of fact holding that the removal of the sand from the river in question pursuant to the lease deeds has affected the rights of the Petitioners and that the additional condition No. 2 incorporated to the lease deeds has been violated by the contesting Respondents is the finding recorded by the competent authority, thereby the rights of the Petitioners and other farmers including the impleading applicants have been adversely affected and thus the Nature Environment and living creatures rights as held by the Apex Court in the cases cited supra are affected. In view of the findings of the Competent Authority and law on the question, this Court is not inclined to accept the report of the Regional Director, accordingly the same is rejected. In view of the said reasons recorded by this Court, the contentions urged by Sri D.L.N. Rao that the Petitioners are not aggrieved parties as they have not challenged the lease deeds cannot be accepted by this Court for the reason that the Petitioners and the impleading applicants, farmers and living creatures rights have been adversely affected because they own agricultural lands and they have drilled borewells and themselves and their family members existence is based on the agricultural operations. On the other hand, the rights of Respondents 2 and 3 are subject to the reasonable restrictions of the KMMC Rules, Article 51A(g) of the Constitution and the law laid down by the Apex Court in the cases referred to supra. The submission of the learned Counsel on behalf of the contesting Respondents that the law laid down by the Apex Court in the cases referred to supra reported in Devaki Nandan Pandey Vs. The submission of the learned Counsel on behalf of the contesting Respondents that the law laid down by the Apex Court in the cases referred to supra reported in Devaki Nandan Pandey Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, AIR 1987 SC 359 at para 8 are not applicable to the facts of this case contending that the law laid down by the Apex Court in the aforesaid cases is the public interest litigation and therefore the law laid down in the aforesaid cases is not applicable to the facts of this case is wholly untenable in law for the reason that the law enunciated by the Apex Court in the cases referred to supra with all fours applicable to the facts of this case, as the contesting Respondents have created ecological and environmental problems which is not permitted under Article 51A(g) of the Constitution. Therefore, I have to record a finding that the order passed by the first Respondent is not an order passed by him independently applying his mind and it affects the rights of the Petitioners, impleading applicants and living creatures, on account of that fact the removal of sand from the river in question by the contesting Respondents the ecology and environment has been adversely affected. 8. For the reasons stated supra, this Writ Petition is allowed. Rule issued and made absolute. The impugned order at Annexure-A is hereby quashed.