Judgment :- 1. The Petitioner has filed the present Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus in calling for the records of the 1st respondent's Proceedings in G.O.(D).No.82 Industries (MMCI) dated 14.09.2006 and quash the same. Further, the Petitioner has also sought for issuance of direction by this Court to the respondents in granting the stone quarry lease to the petitioner in S.F.No.1133/1 (part) over extent of 5.00.0 hectares of Pilichi Village, Coimbatore (North) Taluk, Coimbatore District for a period of 5 years. 2. According to the Petitioner, the 3rd Respondent/District Collector, Coimbatore notified certain poramboke lands in Coimbatore District for leasing out the right of quarries stone and sand from the said lands in the Coimbatore District Gazette No.24, dated 05.11.1996.The Petitioner submitted her Tender Application on 29.11.1996 with reference to the stone quarry comprised in the land bearing Survey No.1133/1 Bit -I over an extent of 5.00.0 hectares in Pilichi Village, Coimbatore North Taluk, Coimbatore District. 3. The Petitioner furnished the Tender Application in the prescribed form by enclosing Rs.1,500/- towards application fee and a sum of Rs.10,000/-towards Earnest Money Deposit. She quoted the amount of Rs.34,442/-in the Tender Application as the first year lease amount. The public auction was conducted on 29.11.1996.After the public auction, the tenders were opened. 4. It is the case of the Petitioner that she is the highest and successful bidder/tenderer. The amount quoted by her viz., Rs.34.442/-is the upset price determined by the Government. She is the only applicant for the said quarry. Since the Respondent has not passed orders in granting lease to her for a long time, she approached this Court by filing W.P.No.8020 of 1999 seeking a Writ of Mandamus directing the Respondent to issue work order to the Petitioner to quarry stones/jelly from the aforesaid notified area. By an order dated 30.04.1999, this Court was pleased to order Notice of Motion to the Respondent herein and directed to post the Writ Petition after summer vacation. During the pendency of the Writ Petition, the Respondent passed order in Na.Ka.No.152996/96/XI dated 05.08.1999 rejecting the Petitioner's tender on an erroneous and unsustainable reasons. The reasons assigned in the order are as follows: i) There is a need for getting technical details about the nature of rock on the area; and ii) The Rule 8 was amended by the Government subsequently. 5. The reasons assigned in the order are as follows: i) There is a need for getting technical details about the nature of rock on the area; and ii) The Rule 8 was amended by the Government subsequently. 5. The plea of the Petitioner is that the reasons aforesaid ascribed in the rejection order is unsustainable in law, for the simple reason Rule 8 of the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959 has been amended subsequently and as such, it cannot be mentioned as reason for rejecting the tender. 6. It is pertinent to make a mention that at the relevant point of time, Rule 8(6)(a) and 8 (6)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959 read as follows: "8(6)(a) Where only one tender application is received for an area, the District Collector may grant the lease in favour of the single application, if in his opinion the annual tender amount offered by the Applicant is reasonable in the circumstances of the case and the grant of the lease to the applicant will be in the interests of mineral development. If the District Collector is not satisfied in the above aspects, he may reject the application communicating the reasons therefore in writing to the applicant and issue fresh Notification in the District Gazette calling for re-tender applications for the area concerned. 8(6)(b) Where two or more tender applications are received for an area, the District Collector shall ordinarily grant the lease in favour of the highest tenderer or the highest bidder, as the case may be, Provided that where the Collector is satisfied – (i) That the highest tender amount or bid amount fetched for an area is not reasonable in the circumstances of the case Or ii) That it will not be in the interests of mineral development to grant the lease to the highest tenderer or highest bidder, shall pass orders refusing to grant the lease in favour of such applicant communicating to him the reasons thereof in writing." From the aforesaid ingredients of the Rules, the Petitioner contends that the highest bidder can be rejected only on the ground specified supra. 7. 7. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner brings it to the notice of this Court that aggrieved against the order of the District Collector dated 05.08.1999, the Petitioner filed W.P.No.18933 of 2001 before this Court and by an order dated 29.10.2001, this Court directed the Petitioner to approach the Appellate Authority viz., the Director of Geology & Mining. Thereafter, the Petitioner was forced to prefer an Appeal within the time determined by this Court. 8. The District Collector sent his remarks while disposing the Appeal before the Appellate Authority, wherein it was stated that the subject area was situated in a Taluk which was under the purview of the Hill Area Conservation Authority, and after their clearance only, lease could be granted. Also, it was mentioned that necessary proposals were submitted to the Government and the Special Commissioner, Town and Country Planning, Chennai relating to deletion of plain area from the purview of the Hill Area Conservation Authority. While issuing the Notification, although the aforesaid condition was not imposed, the District Collector sent his remark by adding the aforesaid condition. The Director of Geology and Mining allowed the Appeal preferred by the Petitioner and directed the District Collector to pass fresh order by taking into account of the points discussed in Appeal order and also imposed a condition to get a necessary clearance from Hill Area Conservation Authority. 9. Being dissatisfied with the condition specified by the Appellate Authority, the Petitioner again filed W.P.No.12116 of 2002 on the ground that there was no such condition imposed in the original Notification. Further, the clearance of the Hill Conservation Committee would take considerable time and moreover, the subject area was only a plain area. This Court, by its order dated 19.02.2003, directed the Hill Area Conservation Authority to consider the proposal given by the District Collector of Coimbatore for clearance in accordance with the Rules within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the order. 10. On receipt of the order made in W.P.No.12116 of 2002, the Petitioner gave a representation to the District Collector requesting him to send a proposal to the Hill Area Conservation Committee, for clearance, if no such proposal was sent earlier. 10. On receipt of the order made in W.P.No.12116 of 2002, the Petitioner gave a representation to the District Collector requesting him to send a proposal to the Hill Area Conservation Committee, for clearance, if no such proposal was sent earlier. The Hill Area Conservation Authority, after receipt of the order, communicated its clearance in Proceedings Roc.No.6794/2003/GR dated 19.04.2003 that there was no requirement for getting the clearance of the Hill Area Conservation Authority in regard to the present quarry pursuant to G.O.Ms.No.49 H & UD Department, dated 24.03.2003.Therefore, there was no impediment to pass order for granting a stone quarry pursuant to the Appellate Authority's order dated 26.03.2002 in Rc.No.15969/MM5/2001.Since the District Collector had not passed any order, the Petitioner made a representation on 07.05.2003 and 10.06.2003 requesting the District Collector to implement the Appellate Authority's order dated 26.03.2003. 11. Inasmuch as no order was passed by the District Collector, Coimbatore, the Petitioner filed W.P.No.18433 of 2003 before this Court and on 04.07.2003 this Court directed the District Collector to pass appropriate orders within a period of six weeks. However, the District Collector, according to the Petitioner, without considering the direction issued by the Appellate Authority, passed the order rejecting the grant of stone quarry lease as per Proceedings Ref.No.957/99/ MM1/ dated 06.08.2003. 12. The Petitioner filed W.P.No.25356 of 2003 and this Court allowed the Writ Petition on 18.10.2004 and remanded the matter to the District Collector, Coimbatore by making the following observation: "In view of the order, which has been characterized by the Appellate Authority as an illegal order and an outcome of afterthought, the petitioner has been successfully driven to various Appellate forums, including this Court. When that being the position, now the reason stated by the District Collector at this point of time (i.e.) after a considerable lapse of time that it would not be in the interest of mineral development to grant the lease in favour of the petitioner cannot be at all be accepted. This attitude of the respondent-District Collector to pass an order deviating from the direction given by the appellate Authority also can be regarded only as outcome of desperation to see that the petitioner should not be granted the lease. This attitude of the respondent-District Collector to pass an order deviating from the direction given by the appellate Authority also can be regarded only as outcome of desperation to see that the petitioner should not be granted the lease. Hence, the impugned order is set aside and the Respondent-District Collector is hereby directed to pass an order in accordance with law within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is expected that the order would be passed taking into consideration of the direction given by the Appellate Authority in its order dated 26.03.2003, which is extracted above. With the above, the writ petition is allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected WPMP is closed." 13. The Petitioner, soon after receipt of order passed in W.P.No.25356 of 2003 dated 18.10.2004, approached the 3rd Respondent/District Collector, Coimbatore to grant lease in pursuance of the direction issued by this Court in W.P.No.25356 of 2003.The 3rd Respondent/District Collector rejected the claim of the Petitioner as per his order dated 22.11.2004 in Ref.No.957/99/MM1 without following the direction issued by this Court in the Writ Petition. 14. The Petitioner filed Contempt Petition No.105 of 2005 before this Court for willful disobedience of the order dated 18.10.2004 passed in W.P.No.25356 of 2003.The 3rd Respondent/District Collector reviewed his own order and passed fresh orders on 19.07.2005 affirming his earlier order dated 22.11.2004, which, according to the Petitioner, is impermissible in law. Subsequently, the Contempt Petition No.105 of 2005 has been closed (as informed by the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner). 15. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner urges before this Court that the 1st Respondent/Secretary to Government, Industries (MMC1) Department, State of Tamil Nadu has taken up the suo motu revision against the order dated 26.03.2002 passed by the 2nd Respondent/Commissioner and Director of Geology and Mining, without issuing notice to the Petitioner applying Rule 40 of The Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959 and resultantly, set aside the 2nd Respondent's Order dated 26.03.2002 in G.O.(D) No.82 Industries (MMCI) Department dated 14.09.2006. 16. 16. The pith and substance of the submission of the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner is that the impugned order of the 1st Respondent, in G.O.(D) No.82 Industries (MMC1) Department, dated 14.09.2006 is invalid in law because of the fact that admittedly as per Rule 40 of The Tamil Nadu Minor Minerals Concession Rules prior opportunity of hearing the Petitioner before passing the impugned order has not been afforded to the Petitioner which is a clear negation of the Principles of Natural Justice. 17. The Rules of Natural Justice can be described as 'Basic Values' and cannot be brushed aside so easily by any authority. 18. The aim of Natural Justice is to protect fundamental liberties, civil and political rights. The concept of Natural Justice is not only to secure justice but to prevent miscarriage of justice. Its essence is good conscience in a given situation; nothing mere but nothingless. 19. The conventional traditional English Law approves two Principles of Natural Justice: (a) Nemo debt esse judex in propria causa: No man shall be a judge in his own cause, or a man cannot act as judge and at the same time a party or suitor; or the deciding authority must be impartial and without bias; and (b) Audi alteram partem: Hear the other side, or both the sides must be heard, or no man should be condemned unheard, or that there must be fairness on the part of the deciding authority. But, in view of the development of Constitutional Law coupled with the Administrative Law, another Principles of Natural Justice has emerged viz., (c)Speaking orders or reasoned decisions: All orders should be supported by reasons. 20. The compulsion of hearing before passing an order implied in maxim 'audi alteram partem' applies to judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings as per decision in Kishan Chand V. Commissioner of Police, AIR 1961 SC 705 . 21. 20. The compulsion of hearing before passing an order implied in maxim 'audi alteram partem' applies to judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings as per decision in Kishan Chand V. Commissioner of Police, AIR 1961 SC 705 . 21. It is to be borne in mind that Rule 40 of the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959 enjoins as follows: "40.Power of revision of the State Government.- The State Government may, of their own motion or otherwise, for good and sufficient reasons, revise any order of any authority subordinate to them made in exercise of the powers conferred on the authority under these Rules: Provided that no order in exercise of the above power shall be passed by the State Government without giving an opportunity of being heard to the person who will be considered to be adversely affected by such an order." 22.A cursory perusal of Rule 40 of The Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959 indicates that the Power of Revision will have to be exercised by the State Government while passing the order by adhering to the Principles of Natural Justice scrupulously that too in true letter and spirit. To put it succinctly, an opportunity will have to be provided to the Petitioner prior to the State Government passing suo motu order of revision. 23. The said Rule 40 enjoins 'Provided that no order in exercise of the above power shall be passed by the State Government without giving an opportunity of being heard to the person who will be considered to be adversely affected by such an order'. On a plain reading of the said rule shows that the words employed therein are explicit, mandatory and it admits of no exception. 24. To put it differently, the words employed like 'no order in exercise of the power shall be passed by the State Government without giving an opportunity of being heard' are not directory in nature, in the considered opinion of this Court. Per contra, this Court opines that they are mandatory in character. 25. 24. To put it differently, the words employed like 'no order in exercise of the power shall be passed by the State Government without giving an opportunity of being heard' are not directory in nature, in the considered opinion of this Court. Per contra, this Court opines that they are mandatory in character. 25. Be that as it may, on going through the impugned order in G.O.(D).No.82 Industries (MMC1) Department, dated 14.09.2006 passed by the 1st Respondent, this Court does not find either expressly or impliedly that any prior opportunity of hearing has been provided to the Petitioner, who is likely to be affected by the suo motu order of revision to be passed by the 1st Respondent, by invoking the ingredients of Rule 40 of The Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959. 26. The suo motu powers of revision is not meant to be exercised arbitrarily, unreasonably and unfairly. A Court of Law can intervene if a litigant is put to prejudice and loss by exercise of power of revision by the State as per Rule 40 of the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959. 27. Inasmuch as the 1st Respondent has not provided an opportunity of hearing the Petitioner before passing the impugned order dated 14.09.2006, this Court comes to an inevitable and irresistible conclusion (without going into the merits of the matter) that the said order passed by the 1st Respondent dated 14.09.2006 is not in accordance with the mandatory requirement of Rule 40 and on this ground itself, the impugned order is liable to be quashed and accordingly, the impugned order dated 14.09.2006 is hereby quashed. Consequently, the Writ Petition succeeds. 28. In the result, the Writ Petition is allowed. No costs. The order passed by the 1st Respondent, in G.O.(D) No.82 Industries (MMC1) Department, dated 14.09.2006, is set aside. It is open to the 1st Respondent/Secretary to Government to pass fresh orders in accordance with law after providing due opportunity to the Petitioner and also after hearing the Petitioner. In such an event, it is open to the Petitioner to raise all factual and other legal issues before the 1st Respondent. The 1st Respondent is directed to provide an adequate opportunity by following the Principles of Natural Justice and to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law and in the manner known to law. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.