JUDGMENT : (1) As common question is involved in these writ petitions, w. P. No. 27371/03, w. P. No. 27372/03, w. P. No. 27973/03 and w. P. No. 27974/03, they are being decided by this common order. (2) Facts of w. P. No. 27371/03 have been referred in the present order. This writ petition has been filed against the order dated 6 - 8 - 2003 (annexure p - 4) passed by the respondent no. 1 under rule 57 (5) of the m. P. Minor minerals rules, 1996 (for short 'the rules of 1996'). (3) The facts in brief are that the petitioner had moved an application for grant of quarry lease for minor mineral marble for an area of 10. 50 hectares falling in khasra no. 155 situated at gram gathora, district jabalpur, m. P. The petitioner's application was considered along with five other applicants who had made similar applications for prospecting lease or quarry lease. After giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, the state government had passed the order dated 28 - 6 - 2003 sanctioning grant of quarry lease to the petitioner for khasra no. 155 area 3. 42 hectares at village gathora, district jabalpur for a period of 10 years. By this order lease was also sanctioned to m/s. P. K. Marble and m/s. Bhawani marble for the same extent of area in khasra no. 155. Thereafter, the lease deed in form vii was executed in terms of rule 26 of the rules of 1996 in favour of petitioner in respect of area allotted to him on part of khasra no. 155 at village gadhora, tehsil sihora. (4) The grievance of the petitioner arose when the respondent no. 1 passed the order dated 6 - 8 - 03 (annexure p - 4) in suo motu exercise of the review power contained in rule 57 (5) of the rules of 1996 without giving opportunity of hearing and reduced the lease area of the petitioner from 3. 42 hectares to 2. 57 hectares. (5) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has assailed the order (annexure p - 4) , on the ground that in terms of rule 62 read with rule 64 of the rules of 1996 the order dated 6 - 8 - 2003 could not have been passed without giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 57 hectares. (5) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has assailed the order (annexure p - 4) , on the ground that in terms of rule 62 read with rule 64 of the rules of 1996 the order dated 6 - 8 - 2003 could not have been passed without giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. He has further submitted that the order has been passed under rule 57 (5) of the rules of 1996 and before passing adverse order in suo motu exercise of revisional power it was necessary for the respondent no. 1 to issue notice and give opportunity of hearing which he has failed to do. He has further submitted that under rule 57; (5) the state has power to suo motu review any order passed by it but the state exercising the said power cannot reduce the lease area covered by the statutory lease executed in favour of the petitioner and such power is only vested with the central government under section 4 - a of the mines and mineral (development and regulation) act, 1957. In support of his submission he has placed reliance on state of haryana vs. Ramkishan and others, air 1988 sc 1301 , assam sillimanite limited and another vs. Union of india and others, air 1990 sc 1417 and canara bank and others vs. Shri debasis das and others, air 2003 sc 2041 . (6) Learned counsel appearing for respondent nos. 1 and 2 has" submitted that application for grant of quarry lease was made by the respondent no. 3 and since it was not considered along with the application of the petitioner and other persons at the time of passing of the order dated 28 - 6 - 2003, therefore, the state has rightly exercised the powers of suo motu review under rule 57 (5) of the rules of 1996 and reviewed the order dated 28 - 6 - 2003. (7) Learned counsel for the respondent no. 3 has submitted that the respondent no. 3 had filed application dated 9 - 5 - 2003 for grant of quarry lease for mining mineral for an area of 10. 50 hectares falling in khasra no. 155 village gathora, district jabalpur. (7) Learned counsel for the respondent no. 3 has submitted that the respondent no. 3 had filed application dated 9 - 5 - 2003 for grant of quarry lease for mining mineral for an area of 10. 50 hectares falling in khasra no. 155 village gathora, district jabalpur. In spite of his application, at the time of personal hearing on 13 - 6 - 2003, he was not called and no opportunity of hearing was given to him and the quarry lease was allotted to other persons behind his back by order dated 28 - 6 - 2003 therefore, the state has rightly reviewed this order by exercising the review power under rule 57 (5) and passed the order dated 6 - 8 - 2003. (8) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The order dated 28 - 6 - 2003 shows that the applications of following six applicants were considered for allotment of prospecting lease/quarry lease: - (i) m/s. R. R. Marble, (ii) m/s. Ojaswi marble, (iii) , m/s. Deepali marble, (iv) m/s. P. K. Marble, (v) m/s. Bhawani marble, (vi) m/s. Chandni marble. (9) The aforesaid applicants were given opportunity of hearing by respondent no. 1 on 13 - 6 - 2003 and thereafter, by order dated 28 - 6 - 2003 quarry lease was sanctioned for minor mineral marble for 10 years on khasra no. 155 in favour of the following: - (i) m/s. P. K. Marble, area 3. 42 hectares, (ii) m/s. Bhawani marble, area 3. 42 hectares, (iii) m/s. Chandni marble, area 3. 42 hectares. (10) In pursuance to the sanction order dated 28 - 6 - 2003 lease deed dated 22 - 7 - 2003 was executed in favour of the petitioner in form vii in terms of rule 26 of the rules of 1996. From annexure r - l filed along with the return by respondent no. 3 it appears that respondent no. 3 had made an application on 8 - 5 - 2003 for grant of quarry lease over an area of 10. 5. 0 hectares falling under khasra no. 155, p. H. No. 52 situated in village gathora, district jabalpur, m. P. , but when the applications of other applicants were considered and other applicants were heard on 13 - 6 - 2003, the application of the respondent no. 5. 0 hectares falling under khasra no. 155, p. H. No. 52 situated in village gathora, district jabalpur, m. P. , but when the applications of other applicants were considered and other applicants were heard on 13 - 6 - 2003, the application of the respondent no. 3 was not taken into account and no opportunity of hearing was given to him and the order dated 28 - 6 - 2003 was passed without considering the application of the respondent no. 3. The order dated 6 - 8 - 03 reflects that the collector, jabalpur, had subsequently forwarded the application of the respondent no. 3 vide memo dated 2 - 7 - 2003 but by that time the order dated 28 - 6 - 2003 was already passed, therefore, the state government exercised suo motu powers of revision contained in rule 57 (5) of the rules of 1996 and reviewed its order dated 28 - 6 - 2003 and sanctioned the following area in favour of the applicants: - (1) m/s. P. K. Marble, 2. 57 hectares; (ii) m/s. Bhawani marble, 2. 57 hectares; (iii) m/s. Chandni marble, 2. 57 hectares; (iv) m/s. N. S. Marble, 2. 57 hectares. (11) The issue that arises for consideration is whether the state could have reviewed its earlier order dated 28 - 6 - 03 in suo motu exercise of review power under rule 57 (5) of the rules of 1996 without giving opportunity of hearing to those in favour of whom the order dated 28 - 6 - 03 was passed. (12) The powers of appeal, review and revision are contained in rule 57 of the rules of 1996, which are as follows: - 57. Appeal, review and revision. - (2) where any power is exercisable by the collector/additional collector under these rules, in relation to any matter an appeal shall lie from every order passed or deemed to have been passed under these rules to the director. (3) where any power is exercisable by the director under these rules, in relation to any matter an appeal shall lie from every order passed or deemed to have been passed under these rules to the state government. (3) where any power is exercisable by the director under these rules, in relation to any matter an appeal shall lie from every order passed or deemed to have been passed under these rules to the state government. (4) any person aggrieved by any order passed or deemed to have been passed by the state government, in exercise of the powers conferred under these rules, may, within sixty days of the date of communication of the order to him, apply to the state government for review of the order. (5) the state government may at its own motion review any order passed by itself and pass such order in reference thereto as it thinks fit. In the present case, the state has exercised the suo motu review power contained in rule 57 (5). (13) Rule 62 of the rules of 1996 contains the extent of appeal, revision and review power and rule 64 provides for opportunity of hearing. Rules 62 and 64 are quoted below: - 62. Order on appeal, revision or review application. - where an application for appeal, revision or review is made under these rules the authority may confirm, modify or set aside the order or pass such other order in relation thereto as it may deem just and proper. 64. Opportunity for being heard. - no order under rule 62 shall be passed against any person interested unless he has been given an opportunity to represent his case. (14) Rule 62 deals with exercise of the review power by the authority on an application made under the rules and rule 64 expressly provides for giving opportunity of hearing to person interested while passing any order under rule 62. In the present case, rule 64 may not be strictly applicable since the order dated 6 - 8 - 03 has not been passed under rule 57 (4) on an application but the said order has been passed in exercise of suo motu power of review under section 57 (5) of the rules. (15) The state government while exercising suo motu power of review under rule 57 (5) has passed the order dated 6 - 8 - 2003 by which the original lease area of the petitioner has been reduced from 3. 42 hectares to 2. 57 hectares. By the original order dated 28 - 6 - 2003 the petitioner was sanctioned 3. (15) The state government while exercising suo motu power of review under rule 57 (5) has passed the order dated 6 - 8 - 2003 by which the original lease area of the petitioner has been reduced from 3. 42 hectares to 2. 57 hectares. By the original order dated 28 - 6 - 2003 the petitioner was sanctioned 3. 42 hectares and by the review order dated 6 - 8 - 2003 the said area is reduced to 2. 57 hectares. If any adverse order was to be passed against the petitioner in exercise of the suo motu review power then it was necessary for the review authority to comply with the principles of natural justice and give an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. It is the settled law that an administrative order, which involves civil consequences, can only be passed after complying with the rules of natural justice. Supreme court in case of baldev singh and others vs. State of himachal pradesh, (1987) 2 scc 510 , held in para 5 as under: - it is a fact that the orissa act provides in clear terms a right of hearing whereas section 256 of the himachal act makes no such provision, but the settled position in law is that where exercise of a power results in civil consequences to citizens, unless the statute specifically rules out the application of natural justice, the rules of natural justice would apply. (16) Supreme court in the case of state of haryana vs. Ram kishan (supra) , while considering the premature termination of mining lease without affording opportunity of hearing held in paragraph 8 as under: - 8. Considered in this light, the section must be interpreted to imply that the person who may be affected by such a decision should be afforded an opportunity to prove that the proposed step would not advance the interest of mines and mineral development. Not to do so will be violative of the principles of natural justice. Since there is no suggestion in the section to deny the right of the affected persons to be heard, the provisions have to be interpreted as implying to preserve such a right. Not to do so will be violative of the principles of natural justice. Since there is no suggestion in the section to deny the right of the affected persons to be heard, the provisions have to be interpreted as implying to preserve such a right. Reference may be made to the observations of this court in baldev singh vs. State of himanchalpradesh, (1987) 2 scc 510 = ( air 1987 sc 1239 ) , that where exercise of a power results in civil consequences to citizens, unless the statute specifically rules out the application of natural justice, such rules would apply. The cases, union of india vs. Cynamide india ltd. Air 1987 sc 1802 , d. C. Saxena vs. State of haryana, air 1987 sc 1463 and state of tamil nadu vs. Hind stone etc. (1981) 2 scr 742 = air 1981 sc 711 , relied upon by mr. Mohanthy do not help the appellant. The learned counsel placed reliance on the observations in paragraphs 5 to 7 of the judgment in union of india vs. Cynamide ltd. , which were made in connection with legislative activity which is not subject to the rule of audi alteram partem. The principles of natural justice have no application to legislative activities, but that is not the position here. It has already been pointed out earlier that the existing mining leases were not brought to their end directly by section 4 - a itself. They had to be terminated by the exercise of the executive authority of the state government. Somewhat similar was the situation with regard to section 4 - a of haryana board of school education act, 1969 which was under consideration ind. C. Saxena vs. State of haryana, air 1987 sc 1463 . A matter of policy adopted and included by the legislature in the impugned section. Besides, the validity of the section was not under challenge there, as was expressly stated in paragraph 6 of the judgment. So far as the case, state of tamil nadu vs. Hind stone is concerned, the learned counsel for the appellant cited it only with a view to emphasis the importance of the mineral wealth of the nation which nobody denies. We, therefore, hold that a final decision to prematurely terminate a lease can be taken only after notice to the lessee. We, therefore, hold that a final decision to prematurely terminate a lease can be taken only after notice to the lessee. (17) Supreme court in canara bank and others vs. Shri devashish das and others (supra) , while considering the meaning of civil consequences has held in para 19 as under: - 19. Concept of natural justice has undergone a great deal of change in recent years. Rules of natural justice are not rules embodied always expressly in a statute or in rules framed thereunder. They may be implied from the nature of the duty to be performed under a statute. What particular rule of natural justice should be implied and what its context should be in a given case must depend to a great extent on the fact and circumstances of that case, the framework of the statute under which the enquiry is held. The old distinction between a judicial act and an administrative order, which involves civil consequences, must be consistent with the rules of natural justice. Expression 'civil consequences' encompasses infraction of not merely property or personal rights but of civil liberties, material deprivations, and non - pecuniary damages. In its wide umbrella comes everything that affects a citizen in his civil life. (18) Reduction of lease area after grant of lease will have civil consequences adversely affecting the interest of lease holders and without giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner the respondent no. 1 could not have reviewed its earlier order dated 28 - 6 - 2003 by which certain rights had already accrued in favour of the petitioner. (19) Thus, the review order dated 6 - 8 - 2003 cannot be sustained and the same is accordingly set aside and the matter is remitted back to the respondent no. 1 to pass fresh order after giving an opportunity of hearing to all the effected parties. It would be open for the petitioner to raise all such grounds, which they have raised in the writ petition. The order dated 6 - 8 - 03 even otherwise had not come into operation since this court while issuing notice in the writ petition vide order dated 4 - 9 - 2003 had stayed its operation. (20) Since no opinion on merits of the case has been expressed by this court, the respondent no. 1 is directed to decide the matter in accordance with law. (20) Since no opinion on merits of the case has been expressed by this court, the respondent no. 1 is directed to decide the matter in accordance with law. With the aforesaid directions, this petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.