Judgment :- 1. The petitioner prays for issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari, to quash the impugned order dated 23.09.2011 of the District Collector, Namakkal in cancelling the order of allotment of lease under the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959. 2. The petitioner along with Raghunathan and Raja @ Vijayakumar are owners of the patta land bearing S.F.No.339/2, measuring 1.58.5 Hectares in Marapparai Village, Thiruchengodu Taluk, Namakkal District. The land was subject to quarry operation for 5 years under the permission granted on 05.09.1983, which was extended by another three years on 18.12.1992. 3. In the year 2001, Salem District was bifurcated and the land in dispute, which was previously in Salem District, fell within Namakkal District. The petitioner with the consent of other co-owners applied for quarry lease to the District Collector, for quarrying for a period of 5 years vide application dated 19.12.2003. 4. An enquiry was conducted and finding that the petitioner was entitled to lease under the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959, vide order dated 25.02.2004, lease was granted in favour of the petitioner to quarry stones from the patta land for a period of 5 years. 5. The case of the petitioner is that respondent no.2 wanted the petitioner to purchase the land, adjoining the patta land owned by the respondent no.2. But for want of settlement of price, the deal did not go through. The case of the petitioner is that on account of failure of petitioner to purchase the land of respondent no.2, certain objections were filed against grant of lease for quarrying of stones. The said objections were overruled on the recommendation of the Revenue Divisional Officer, and the lease was granted to the petitioner. 6. The respondent no.2, being aggrieved by the decision of the District Collect, in granting lease, filed appeal before the learned Commissioner. The Commissioner accepted the appeal and remanded the case back to the Collector. 7. The Collector, on reconsideration, again granted lease by overruling objections of respondent no.2. The appeal filed against the decision of the Collector was also rejected. 8. The case of the respondent no.2 is that appeal is pending before the Government against decision in appeal. 9. The Commissioner accepted the appeal and remanded the case back to the Collector. 7. The Collector, on reconsideration, again granted lease by overruling objections of respondent no.2. The appeal filed against the decision of the Collector was also rejected. 8. The case of the respondent no.2 is that appeal is pending before the Government against decision in appeal. 9. The respondent no.2 also challenged the action of the Collector in granting lease to petitioner, by filing W.P.No.15947 of 2004, which was allowed by this Court and directions were issued to the District Collector to consider the objections of the petitioner / respondent no.2 herein. 10. The case of the petitioner is that enquiry was held, and the objections were again rejected. On expiry of lease period on 24.02.2009, the petitioner applied for extension of lease by another five years. The District Collector, after getting report from the Revenue Divisional Officer, granted lease to the petitioner. According to the petitioner, this was done after spot inspection by the Revenue Divisional Officer. 11. This is objected by respondent no.2, on the ground that the Revenue Divisional Officer had reported the existence of residential house, but the District Collector, by ignoring the said report, granted lease in favour of the petitioner, only on the recommendation of the Revenue Divisional Officer. 12. It seems that respondent no.2 again filed objection with the District Collector against grant of lease in favour of the petitioner. The District Collector without notice to the petitioner, considered the objections, filed by respondent no.2 and passed the impugned order, accepting the objections. 13. The petitioner challenged the impugned order, i) firstly on the ground of jurisdiction with the District Collector to review the order earlier passed and; ii) secondly, on the ground that the impugned order was passed in violation of principles of natural justice, as no notice was issued to the petitioner before recalling / cancelling the earlier order passed, in accepting the request of the petitioner for lease. 14. The writ petition is opposed by the learned counsel for the State on the ground that there is alternative remedy of appeal, therefore, this writ petition is not competent. 15. It is also contention of the learned counsel for the State that as under the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959, no notice was required to be issued before passing impugned order to cancel the lease. 16. 15. It is also contention of the learned counsel for the State that as under the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959, no notice was required to be issued before passing impugned order to cancel the lease. 16. Learned counsel for the respondent no.2 opposed the writ petition, on the ground that the order passed by the District Collector is in consonance with the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959, which does not call for any interference by this Court. 17. The learned counsel for respondent no.2 also contends that the impugned order is in interest of cultivation of land of respondent no.2, as continuation of stone quarry is damaging the agricultural land of the respondent no.2, and causing nuisance and health hazards to the respondent no.2. 18. On consideration, I find that the writ petition deserves to succeed. It is true that normally, this court does not interfere with the order where alternative remedy of statutory appeal is available, but at the same time, it is well settled law that alternative remedy of appeal cannot be a bar to exercise the jurisdiction, when the order impugned is issued in violation of principles of natural justice or is patently without jurisdiction. 19. The District Collector, under the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959, exercises quasi judicial power, because the decision of the District Collector is subject to appeal and second appeal. Therefore, the exercise of power is quasi judicial and not administrative. It is well settled law that in case of exercise of quasi judicial power, the authority, after passing of order, becomes functus officio and is not competent to review the earlier decision, unless there is a specific provision of review. 20. It is not disputed that there is no power of review under the rules. The remedy with the respondent no.2 in the given circumstances was to file appeal before the Commissioner, as no objections were competent to call upon the District Collector, to cancel the order, which was passed in exercise of jurisdiction under the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959. 21. The remedy with the respondent no.2 in the given circumstances was to file appeal before the Commissioner, as no objections were competent to call upon the District Collector, to cancel the order, which was passed in exercise of jurisdiction under the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959. 21. The impugned order also suffers from vice of violation of principles of natural justice, as it is not disputed that no notice was issued to the petitioner before cancelling the order of allotment, issued in favour of the petitioner on earlier occasion, by rejecting the objections, which were taken into consideration to cancel the lease at a subsequent stage. 22. It may be pertinent to mention that the matter with regard to grant of lease was, on earlier occasion, also adjudicated and decided in favour of the petitioner and the appeal against the order of the Collector granting lease was also dismissed, though second appeal is pending before the State Government. 23. The impugned order, therefore, being totally without jurisdiction, and having passed without following the principles of natural justice, cannot be sustained in law. 24. The respondent no.2 could have filed appeal against grant of lease, but certainly could not approach the same authority, which had no jurisdiction, to cancel the lease granted. 25. For the reasons stated above, this writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 23.09.2011, is set aside and the order dated 23.08.2011 is restored. 26. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. 27. However, this order shall not be a bar against respondent no.2 to file statutory remedy of appeal in accordance with law, if so advised.