ORDER 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, as well as the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents. 2. It has been stated that the petitioner had been granted permission for the mining of silica sand, in an extent of 4.16.0 hectares of patta lands, in Survey No.46/1A and in the adjacent lands, in Elavur Village, Gummidipoondi Taluk, Thiruvallur District. The lease had been granted in favour of the petitioner, for a period of twenty years, commencing from 30.11.2001 to 29.11.2021. The lease deed had been executed on 30.11.2001. The petitioner had been carrying on mining operations, as per the rules and regulations applicable to the lease granted in his favour. While so, the mining operations had been stopped by the District Collector, by issuing a show cause notice, dated 23.12.2009. The petitioner had submitted a detailed reply, on 5.1.2010, denying the allegations contained in the said show cause notice. Thereafter, the Tahsildar and the Revenue Divisional Officer concerned had inspected the area, where the mining activities were being carried on and had submitted a report, dated 30.6.2010, stating that the petitioner had not indulged in illicit mining, as alleged in the show cause notice. Thereafter, the petitioner had filed a writ petition before this Court, in W.P.No.2530 of 2011, for the issuance of dispatch slips for transporting the mined silica sand. However, the said writ petition had been dismissed, by this Court, on 7.6.2011, based on a report that the petitioner had indulged in illicit mining and that a decision was likely to be taken to cancel the lease granted in his favour. A writ appeal had been filed against the said order, in W.A.No.104 of 2012. The first bench of this court had passed an order, on 14.2.2012, directing the competent authority to conduct an enquiry and pass appropriate orders thereon, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Even though the petitioner had denied the allegations made against him, relating to illegal mining, an order had been passed by the second respondent, on 5.6.2012, cancelling the lease granted in favour of the petitioner, without conducting an inspection of the area in question. Therefore, the impugned order of the second respondent, dated 5.6.2012, is arbitrary and illegal and therefore, it is liable to be set aside. 3. Therefore, the impugned order of the second respondent, dated 5.6.2012, is arbitrary and illegal and therefore, it is liable to be set aside. 3. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the second respondent the averments and allegations made by the petitioner, in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, had been denied. The lease granted in favour of the petitioner for the mining of silica sand, in R.S.No.46/1A and in other adjoining lands, in Elavur Village, Gummidipoondi Taluk, Thiruvallur District, in an extent of 4.16.0 hectares, had been cancelled, in public interest and to avoid the infiltration and intrusion of sea water, by the proceedings of the second respondent, dated 5.6.2012. 4. It has been further stated that the Superintendent of Police, Tiruvallur, vide letter, dated 10.11.2009, had informed the District Collector, Thiruvallur District, that the petitioner was mining silica sand, illegally, from the adjoining patta and poramboke lands, by misusing the bulk permits and dispatch slips. A joint inspection had been conducted, on 12.12.2009, by the Assistant Director, Geology and Mining, Tiruvallur, along with the Assistant Geologist, Deputy Tahsildar (Mines) and other officials. It was found that the petitioner had been involved in unsystematic mining in the leasehold area, without adhering to the conditions stipulated in the approved mining plan. Thereafter, based on the enquiry conducted, the lease granted in favour of the petitioner had been cancelled, by the second respondent, by his proceedings, dated 5.6.2012. 5. It has been further stated that, as per the direction of the State Government, dated 8.8.2007, and as per the government order made in G.O.Ms.No.133, Industries (MMA1) Department, dated 4.5.1998, the Commissioner of Geology and Mining has the power to revoke the lease granted for the violation of the conditions of the lease, by virtue of the provisions contained in Section 21 of the General Clauses Act, 1897. Further, Rule 4A(2) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, would apply only in respect of premature termination of lease relating to minor minerals. However, the said provision would not apply in respect of the lease granted form a major mineral like silica sand. Hence, the action of the second respondent in cancelling the mining lease granted in favour of the petitioner cannot be said to be arbitrary or illegal. 6. However, the said provision would not apply in respect of the lease granted form a major mineral like silica sand. Hence, the action of the second respondent in cancelling the mining lease granted in favour of the petitioner cannot be said to be arbitrary or illegal. 6. It has been further stated that the power to grant mining leases would also include the power to cancel the same and therefore, the government has every power to issue directions to the Commissioner of Geology and Mining and to the District Collector concerned, to proceed under the provisions of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, and the rules framed thereunder. Accordingly, it would be open to the petitioner to file a revision before the Central Government, under Rule 54 of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960. Therefore, the present writ petition, filed by the petitioner before this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is liable to be dismissed, in limine. 7. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had submitted that the mining lease granted in favour of the petitioner for the mining of silica sand could be cancelled only by the State Government, who is the competent authority to do so, under rule 4A(2) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, and Rule 27(5) of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960. The second respondent does not have the power or the authority to cancel the lease granted in favour of the petitioner, invoking the government order, in G.O.Ms.No.133, Industries (MMA1) Department, dated 4.5.1998. 8. It has been further stated that the power vested in the State Government, to cancel the lease, cannot be taken away, by way of a government order. As such the second respondent does not have the power to cancel the lease granted in favour of the petitioner. Further, the second respondent cannot cancel the said lease, by invoking the provisions of the General Clauses Act, 1897. The second respondent had passed the impugned order, dated 5.6.2012, contrary to the provisions of Rule 4A(2) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, and the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 and therefore, the petitioner cannot be compelled to file a revision application, as provided under Rule 54 of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960. The second respondent had passed the impugned order, dated 5.6.2012, contrary to the provisions of Rule 4A(2) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, and the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 and therefore, the petitioner cannot be compelled to file a revision application, as provided under Rule 54 of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960. It has been further stated that the impugned order passed by the second respondent, without having the jurisdiction to do so, is non est in the eye of law. 9. The learned counsel had relied on the following decisions in support of his contentions: 1) State of Tamilnadu Vs. P.Krishnamoorthy, (2004) 4 MLJ 418 (Mad) 2) State of Tamilnadu Vs. P.Krishnamurthy, (2006) 4 SCC 517 3) The State of Tamilnadu Vs. M.Ramaswamy, 2007 (5) CTC 471 10. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, as well as the respondents and on a perusal of the records available, and in view of the decisions cited supra, this Court is of the considered view that the writ petition filed by the petitioner, before this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is not maintainable in view of the availability of an alternative remedy, under Rule 54 of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960. 11. A counter affidavit had been filed on behalf of the second respondent stating that the mining lease granted in favour of the petitioner had been cancelled by the second respondent, in view of the power vested in him, as per the government order, in G.O.Ms.No.133 Industries (MMA1) Department, dated 4.5.1998, read with Section 21 of the General Clauses Act, 1897. A copy of the letter, in D.O.letter No.13433/MMA1/2006, dated 8.8.2007, issued by the Secretary to Government, Government of Tamilnadu, had also been placed before this Court reiterating the stand taken by the second respondent that he has the power and the authority to cancel the lease granted in favour of the petitioner. 12. It is also noted that similar orders had been passed by the second respondent invoking the power vested in him to cancel the leases granted in favour of other similarly situated parties. Therefore, the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner that it is only the State Government which has the power to cancel the lease granted in favour of the petitioner cannot be accepted. Therefore, the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner that it is only the State Government which has the power to cancel the lease granted in favour of the petitioner cannot be accepted. As per Rule 54 of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960, any person aggrieved by any order made by the State Government or other authority, in exercise of the powers conferred on it by the Act or by the said rules, may apply to the Central Government, by way of a revision application, challenging the said order, within a period of three months from the date of communication of such order. Therefore, it is for the petitioner to avail the alternative remedy available to him, by way of a revision application, under Rule 54 of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960, challenging the order of the second respondent, dated 5.6.2012. As such, the present writ petition filed by the petitioner, before this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is liable to be dismissed. Hence, it is dismissed. However, it is made clear that it would be open to the petitioner to file a revision application, before the Central Government, under Rule 54 of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960, as provided therein. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.