Judgment : 1. The order dated 8.1.1997 in W.P. No.3085 of 1987 is sought to be reviewed in this application on the ground that under Section 4(A)(3) of Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (hereinafter, referred to as “the Act”), before terminating the mining lease, an opportunity should be given to the lessee. Section 4(A)(3) of the Act reads as under: “No order making a premature termination of a prospecting licence or mining lease shall be, made except after giving the holder of the licence or lease a reasonable opportunity of being heard.” The said legal position is not disputed by the respondent in their counter to the Writ Petition. In spite of the said position remaining, the Writ Petition came to be dismissed on the ground that a notice was served on the petitioner as required under the Act. 2. On hearing the learned Government Advocate, it now transpires that the said statement found in the order did not reflect the correct factual position and that the petitioner was never served with the notice before effecting termination of the lease. In such circumstances, since such a glaring defect came to crept in the order dated 8.1.1997, the petitioner is well justified in seeking for the review of the said order. Accordingly, the order dated 8.1.1997 shall stand reviewed. 3. When the Writ Petition was taken up the learned Government Advocate submits that inasmuch as. there is a glaring violation of Section 4(A)(3) of the Act. the respondents are prepared to pass fresh orders after giving due opportunity to the petitioner. 4. Having regard to the stand of the respondents, the order impugned in the Writ Petition is set aside with liberty to the respondents to pass fresh orders after giving due opportunity to the petitioner in compliance of Section 4(A)(3) of the Act. Accordingly, the Review Application and Writ Petition are ordered on the above terms. No costs.