JUDGMENT BISWANATH RATH, J. - This writ petition has been filed seeking setting aside of the order no.724/2011 dated 29.11.2011 appearing at Annexure-1 passed by O.P.1 whereby the O.P.1 allowed the Revision Application No.22(06)/2011-RC-1 at the instance of the present O.P.2. 2. Short background involved in the case is that the Partnership Firm, M/s. Arjun Ladha is the lessee of iron ore in respect of 326.50 hectares equivalent to Ac.806.80 decimals under the sanction of the State Government. A lease deed was consequently executed in favour of M/s.Arjun Ladha on 5.11.1966. On 17.1.1967 the Collector, Keonjhar granted surface right permission in respect of 121.40 acres within the leasehold area and in the meantime, on 10.6.1978, the Settlement Officer changed the kisam of the land from Jungle to Taila, Patita and Rasta. Before expiry of the lease period, O.P.2 applied for renewal of mining lease on 6.8.1996. A supplementary mining lease was executed by the State Government in favour of O.P.2 to include Manganese as second mineral. Pending grant of lease for extraction of Manganese Ore, State Government in its Steel and Mines Department vide order no.11155 dated 2.9.1991 allowed the O.P.2 to extract Manganese Ore simultaneously with Iron Ore subject to usual payment of Government dues in advance. The Government of India in the Ministry of Mines conveyed their approval to the grant and for inclusion of Manganese Ore with Iron Ore for the unexpired period till 4.11.1996, vide their letter no.5(29)/91-MV dated 2.4.1992, however subject to compliance of all the amended provisions of the Mines & Mines (Development & Regulation) Act, 1957 (in short, “the MMDR Act”) and the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 (in short, “the F.C.Act”). It is alleged that while the matter remaining thus, the O.P.2 was noticed, vide letter no.5042 dated 7.5.1992, letter no.8738 dated 18.7.1992, letter no.8234 dated 3.7.1993, letter no.10741 dated 21.9.1993 and letter no.14786 dated 9.12.1994 to remove the deficiencies detected by submitting the approved mining plan and obtaining approval of the Government of India for use of forest land for non-forest purposes. Under the premises that even after three and half years, the O.P.2 failed to submit the approved mining plan and the approval for forest clearance from the Government of India, the State withdrew the working permission for Manganese Ore, vide Steel and Mines Department letter no.1900 dated 20.2.1995. Under the premises that even after three and half years, the O.P.2 failed to submit the approved mining plan and the approval for forest clearance from the Government of India, the State withdrew the working permission for Manganese Ore, vide Steel and Mines Department letter no.1900 dated 20.2.1995. In the meantime, by letter dated 30.5.1996, the O.P.2 submitted a mining plan approved by the Indian Bureau of Mines on 2.5.1996. At the same time, the O.P.2 also claimed that it had already taken steps for de-reservation of forest land applying the provision under Section 2 of the F.C. Act. Consequently, Manganese was included as second mineral and a supplementary lease deed was executed on 6.8.1996 in respect of Manganese. The O.P.2 also filed an application for renewal of mining lease for Iron Ore in respect of 326.50 hectares in Villages, Hramotto and Pacheri in the district of Keonjhar. The renewal mining lease application was forwarded by the Collector, Keonjhar to the Director of Mines, vide their letter No.MII/48-95/No.4806/Mines dated 28.12.1995, who finally forwarded the same to the Government of Odisha, vide its letter no.704 dated 19.1.2009. It reveals that introduction to the mining plan as approved by the Indian Bureau of Mines clearly discloses that the mining lease area of Balalgunda Iron Mines falls in Karo Reserve Forest. Again at page-2-iii of the mining plan, it is stated that the total mining lease area, i.e., 326.50 hectares falls in Karo Reserve Forest. The land use pattern shown in the mining plan suggested that the surface rights were granted over the 20.4% of the lease area, which amount to 66.609 hectares. 29.8% of the surface right area, i.e., 19.848 hectares is shown as broken forest area prior to 25.10.1980 being the date on which the F.C. Act came into force. The petitioner claimed that even though the mining lease in favour of the O.P.2 expired on 4.11.1996, the O.P.2 continued its mining activities purportedly under Rule 24 A(6) of the M.C. Rules. Upon receipt of the renewal mining lease application, the senior Surveyor, Joda surveyed the applied area to examine the correctness of the application and by his letter dated 23.9.1996 reported that the contents provided in renewal mining lease application were correct except some minor defects with reference to the executed mining lease deed. Upon receipt of the renewal mining lease application, the senior Surveyor, Joda surveyed the applied area to examine the correctness of the application and by his letter dated 23.9.1996 reported that the contents provided in renewal mining lease application were correct except some minor defects with reference to the executed mining lease deed. The Senior Inspector of Mines inspected the mines on 19.10.2000 and found that boundary pillars were not available on the southern boundary line of the lease plot. Consequently, he requested the Deputy Director of Mines, Joda to demarcate the boundary line to find out the area under mining operation. The Senior Surveyor vide letter dated 29.8.2002 reported that as per the lease deed of 1966, the entire area was within the Karo Reserve Forest. He also reported that the lease area comprises some non-forest lands. Consequent upon the observation of the Senior Surveyor along with the observation of the Senior Inspector, O.P.2 submitted a revised map and land schedule on 9.10.2002 concerning the applied area. The revised map included the proposed lease area in all 782.53 acres in Karo Reserve Forest, 13.74 acres of gramya jungle and 10.83 acres of non-forest land out of which 4.42 acres were private tenanted land and 0.15 acres was classified as Rasta. In the meantime, the Officers of the Revenue, Forest and Mining Department conducted a joint verification of the applied area in 2004 and submitted their report on 5.6.2004. From the report it could be ascertained an area of Ac.115.42 was broken in the reserve forest and Ac.3.27 was broken in the gramya jungle area. In all Ac.118.69 equivalent to 48.03 hectares of forest land had been broken prior to 1980. In the meantime O.P.2 filed an application for diversion of forest land for non-forest purposes on 16.11.2007 stated to have been filed after eleven years of the expiry of mining lease on 4.11.1996. The land involved in the proposal was far less than the total lease area applied for. The diversion proposal indicated that an area of 48.773 hectares was broken up including 45.87 hectares in Karo Reserve Forest and 2.903 hectares of revenue forest/gramya jungle. It is stated that during discussion on the floor of Odisha Legislative Assembly on 24.7.2009 through an adjournment motion on issuance of transit pass under the alleged illegal mining in the Iron Ore Mines. It is stated that during discussion on the floor of Odisha Legislative Assembly on 24.7.2009 through an adjournment motion on issuance of transit pass under the alleged illegal mining in the Iron Ore Mines. Soon after this, the Deputy Director of Mines, Joda issued a letter on 29.7.2009 indicating that O.P.2 has not maintained the lease boundary, land boundary, for which necessary joint verification would be made by the Chief Surveryor along with the personnel of Forest and Revenue Department. Pending such verification, transit permission granted in favour of the O.P.2 in the month of July, 2009 was withdrawn with clear direction that no ore shall be dispatched until the aforesaid joint verification is made. In the meantime, the State Government in the appropriate Department requested the Collector, Keonjhar to cause an enquiry into the matter and furnish a comprehensive report within seven days thereof. Consequent upon which the Collector, Keonjhar formed a committee comprising of the A.D.M., Keonjhar, D.F.O., Keonjhar and the D.D.M., Joda to enquire into the allegation of illegal mining by the O.P.2. The committee undertook a joint verification and submitted an interim report on 11.9.2009. Thereafter the Joint Committee consisting of the A.D.M., Keonjhar, D.D.M., Joda, the A.C.F. representative of D.F.O., Keonjhar, Chief Surveyor and the Senior Inspector of Mines from the Office of D.D.M., Joda submitted a final report on 31.10.2009 indicating some violations as appended to Annexure-9. 3. The O.P.2 assailed the letter of the D.D.M., Joda dated 29.7.2009 for withdrawing the transit permit granted in favour of the O.P.2, vide W.P(C) No.17719/2009. This Court disposed of the said writ petition, vide its order dated 24.12.2009 directing as hereunder:- “Therefore, it is directed that if the joint verification has been made and the petitioner has complied with the requirement of the joint verification report, he shall be permitted to remove the stack in the presence of an officer to be deputed by the Deputy Director, Mines. However, for starting further mining operation, a decision shall be taken by the Opp. Parties as early as possible.” Subsequently, the O.P.2 filed Misc. Case No.434/2010 for modification of the order dated 24.12.2009 involving W.P.(C) No.17719/2009 indicated herein above and seeking therein a direction for issuance of permission for removal of stack and commencement of the mining activities. Said Misc. However, for starting further mining operation, a decision shall be taken by the Opp. Parties as early as possible.” Subsequently, the O.P.2 filed Misc. Case No.434/2010 for modification of the order dated 24.12.2009 involving W.P.(C) No.17719/2009 indicated herein above and seeking therein a direction for issuance of permission for removal of stack and commencement of the mining activities. Said Misc. Case was disposed of on 16.2.2010 directing as follows:- “Since it has been inter alia mentioned that working area beyond the granted surface right area and the iron ore and mining ores extracted from the lease area are not accounted properly in the monthly return amounts to suppression of facts with all motive. Extract removal permission can only be granted ascertaining the quantity of the material extracted beyond the working area under the mining lease is determined. Therefore, the authorities concerned shall determine the quantity of iron ore and manganese ores allegedly extracted from the encroached area, if any. They may do so even by guess work or by calculation according to the ration of the working area vis-à-vis encroached area and take decision allowing to remove the quantity of stack. It will be open for the opposite parties to deal with the material found unauthorisedly extracted from the encroached area in accordance with law. However, this will be done as early as possible, preferably within a period of one month.” 4. In the meantime, following the observations contained in the report dated 31.10.2009, the State Government issued letter dated 19.2.2010 intimating the O.P.2 therein the violations as reported by the Joint Verification Committee and also noticed under rule 27(5) of the M.C. Rules to make good the breaches to the lease conditions within sixty days from the date of receipt of copy thereof. The O.P.2 was also threatened that on the failure to remedy the breaches would warrant action as deemed proper under the provisions of the M.M.D.R.Act and the M.C. Rules. The O.P.2 submitted its explanation on 17.4.2010 whereupon the Deputy Director of Mines was asked to furnish a report on the petitioner’s reply and the report was consequently submitted by the Director of Mines on 30.6.2010. Thereafter, the O.P.2 was given adequate opportunity for submission of his evidence in support of his claim and personal hearings were taken up on several dates. Thereafter, the O.P.2 was given adequate opportunity for submission of his evidence in support of his claim and personal hearings were taken up on several dates. It is alleged that since the O.P.2 did not remedy the breaches nor could be able to justify the breaches to the lease covenant and law, the State Government was pleased to determine the mining lease of the O.P.2 exercising power vested under Rule 27(5) of the M.C. Rules on 15.2.2011. While the above process under Rule 27(5) of the M.C. Rules was on, the State Government filed Special Leave Petition before the Hon’ble Supreme Court as against the order dated 16.2.2010 passed by the High Court involving Misc. Case No.434/2010 arising out of W.P(C) No.17719/2009, vide SLP(C) No.33926 of 2010. In the meantime, the O.P.2 filed Revision under Section 30 of the M.M.D.R. Act before the O.P.1 as against the order of the competent authority dated 15.2.2011. The Revision was registered as Revision Application No.22(6)/2011-RC-1 and it was disposed of upon hearing both the parties on 29.11.2011 thereby allowing the Revision at the instance of the O.P.2. For bringing the order passed by the Revisional Authority before the Hon’ble apex Court, the Hon’ble apex Court refrained it from deciding the legality of the order dated 16.2.2010 and disposed of the S.L.P.(C) No.33926 of 2010 by its order dated 21.3.2012 with the following direction:- “In such circumstances, therefore, we dispose of this special leave petition with the observation that the needful, as indicated above, may be done by the competent authority within a period of six weeks. We make it clear that nothing stated by the High Court in its order dated 16.2.2010 shall prejudice the process of determination of legally and illegally extracted quantities of Iron and manganese ores. No costs.” 5. The petitioner assailed the impugned order passed by the Revisional Authority on the following grounds:- I) That the order of the O.P.1 is illegal, arbitrary and perverse, contrary to the materials available on record and also being based on non-existent reasons and further being contrary to the provisions of the M.M.D.R. Act, the M.C. Rules and other applicable Rules. The petitioner assailed the impugned order passed by the Revisional Authority on the following grounds:- I) That the order of the O.P.1 is illegal, arbitrary and perverse, contrary to the materials available on record and also being based on non-existent reasons and further being contrary to the provisions of the M.M.D.R. Act, the M.C. Rules and other applicable Rules. II) The State has also alleged that the observations of the O.P.1 that the proceeding before the competent authority has been concluded without affording principle of natural justice is an error on the face of record and to justify such ground, the State submitted that the petitioner was not only given opportunity of showing cause but the case was even posted on several dates permitting the O.P.2 to argue its case and under no consideration, the order of the competent authority can be termed to have been passed in violation of principle of natural justice. III) It is also alleged that the Revisional Authority has not decided the matter in conformity to the norms prescribed for quasi judicial tribunals. IV) The State also alleged that O.P.1 did not possess sufficient administrative experience and for being junior in the rank to the Officer of the State, decided the original matter, was incompetent to decide the Revision. V) It is further alleged that for the exclusive power on the petitioner under Section 23(c) of the M.M.D.R. Act to deal with cases of illegal mining, the Central Government shall have no power to revise in exercise of power under Section 30 of the Act passed by the State Government or its authorized officer. VI) The State Government also alleged that there has been no proper appreciation of the materials available on record by the Revisional Authority and there has been no following of the direction of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in W.P.(C) No.202/1995 by the Revisional Authority and the impugned order explicitly reflects lack of application of mind and flawed understanding of law. VII) Lastly, it is also alleged that there has been wrong appreciation of certain materials available on record, particularly, the letter of the Tahasildar, Barbil. Under the circumstance, it is claimed by the State that for the fitness of things in the worse the Revisional Authority could have directed for re-enquiry in the matter. VII) Lastly, it is also alleged that there has been wrong appreciation of certain materials available on record, particularly, the letter of the Tahasildar, Barbil. Under the circumstance, it is claimed by the State that for the fitness of things in the worse the Revisional Authority could have directed for re-enquiry in the matter. The reasons assigned by the Revisional Authority are not only without any substance but is also reflective of a very casual and irresponsible approach. Narrating a portion of the order passed in the Revision, the State-Petitioner tried to demonstrate the above allegation in Paragraph-L of the writ petition. It is also claimed that the O.P.1 has failed to appreciate the illegal raisings made by O.P.2 and there is no reason assigned for the observations of the O.P.1 to the effect that the O.P.2 has not done overburden outside the lease boundary. 6. It is under the above premises, learned Additional Government Advocate, Sri Sahoo, contended that the impugned order suffers on various counts and unless set aside, it will lead to create bad precedence. 7. On their appearance, the opposite party no.2 filed counter affidavit inter alia contending that there is no dispute with regard to grant of mining lease in respect of Iron Ore involving the particular property in favour of opposite party no.2 being executed by the State Government on 5.11.1966. Collector, Keonjhar also granted surface right permission over 121.41 acres within the lease area on 17.1.1967. In the year 1978, the Settlement Officer changed the kisam of the land from jungle to taila, patita and rasta. It is also a fact that the opposite party no.2 applied on 28.10.1995 for renewal of mining lease one year prior to expiry of the lease. In paragraph-9 of the counter affidavit, opposite party no.2 specifically pleaded that the Senior Surveyor indicated that lease area also comprises of non-forest land and opposite party no.2 made a statement in consonance with the pleadings in paragraph-12 of the writ petition that the joint verification was conducted by the Department of Revenue, Mining and Forest in presence of the lessee to demarcate the broken up area prior to 1980 and consequently joint verification map was also prepared. Filing document vide Annexure-J/2, the opposite party no.2 clarified that the Tahasildar, Barbil intimated the Divisional Forest Officer, Keonjhar indicating therein that the status of the land by the Settlement Authority was made pursuant to encroachment of outsiders and the revenue forest was changed to Taila, Patita and Rasta. Referring to Annexure-C/2, opposite party no.2 contended that by letter dated 9.5.2005 the Deputy Director of Mines, Joda allowed the lessee to operate within the non-forest land of the mining lease area and specifically directed that the mining operation should be confined to broken up non-forest land over 4.42 acres. Referring to Annexure-A/2 of the counter affidavit, it is claimed that the Divisional Forest Officer, Keonjhar by his letter dated 15.1.2008 recommended for grant of temporary working permission to the conservator of Forests, Rourkela indicating therein that the lease was deemed to have been extended following the provision contained in Rule 24-A (6) of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 by virtue of which the opposite party no.2 continued mining operation in the non-forest land. Referring to anther document vide Annexure-A/2 series, dated 7.7.2008 claimed that the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests in its letter referred to herein above recommended for grant of temporary working permission in the broken up forest area indicating there in that the mining lease comprises of Karo Reserve Forest, Revenue Forest Land, Gramya Jungle and Non-forest land. In the meantime, the lessee obtained terms of reference from the Ministry of Environment & Forest, New Delhi and on the basis of the terms of reference, the opposite party no.2 also deposited a sum of Rs.75,000/- as consent fee for public hearing. Referring to a document vide Annexure-D/2, a correspondence dated 5.2.2009, it is claimed by opposite party no.2 that on the basis of joint verification report as well as the recommendation of the Principal Secretary to Government, temporary working permission was granted in favour of the opposite party no.2 in respect of already broken up area of 48.772 hectors and consequently Transport Permit in Form-L was also granted in favour of the opposite party no.2 for transportation of ore in the month of July/August, 2009. However, Transit passes in the meantime was withdrawn by the Deputy Director of Mines by a correspondence dated 27.7.2009 vide Annexure-7 on the pretext of further survey being undertaken. However, Transit passes in the meantime was withdrawn by the Deputy Director of Mines by a correspondence dated 27.7.2009 vide Annexure-7 on the pretext of further survey being undertaken. It is claimed that unfortunately in an attempt of blackmailing the opposite party no.2, persons having vested interest raised some questions in the Assembly of the State resulting a joint verification conducted. In the meantime, the opposite party no.2 filed W.P.(C).No.17719 of 2009 challenging the illegal withdrawal of Transit Passes. The writ petition was disposed of on 24.12.2009 with direction, already indicated in paragraph-3 of this judgment. Subsequently, opposite party no.2 also filed a Misc. Case for modification of the order dated 24.12.2009, this Court passed the order quoted herein above in paragraph-3 of this judgment. It is stated that on the basis of some violations indicated in the joint verification report dated 31.10.2009, the State Government issued a show cause notice to the opposite party no.2 under Annexure-12 to the writ petition threatening therein for rescinding the lease on the alleged violations mentioned in the show cause notice. Show cause notice was purported to have been issued under the Provision of Rule 27(5) of M.C. Rules, 1960 with a purpose to make good the breach of conditions as the case may be, within sixty days. Opp.Party No.2 filed his response, vide Annexure-13 and being satisfied with the response of the opposite party no.2, directions were issued to the petitioner to deposit a heavy amount towards NPV and the opposite party no.2 has also deposited the required amount of Rs.20,16,47,120/- on 2.7.2010 with a further deposit of Rs.3,35,00,480/- towards additional NPV on 14.8.2010. In the meantime, the State Pollution Control Board granted consent order for water and air valid up to 31.3.2011 and the State Government in disposal of the issue involved in Annexure-12 determined the lease vide Annexure-16. Sri R.K.Rath, learned senior counsel appearing for the opposite party no.2 contended that the determination order contained certain issues regarding violation of the Forest Conservation Act with a plea that violations of the Forest Conservation Act were brought to the notice of the lessee and were also communicated to all partners of opposite party no.2. This allegation was out and out false and there is no basis of the same. This allegation was out and out false and there is no basis of the same. It is further claimed that the show cause notice under Annexure-12 even though indicated violation of provisions contained in Forest Conservation Act, 1980 and the mining operation being conducted beyond 31.3.2009 without any order of consent to operate, dumping of overburden in the non-forest area in contravention of the provision of lease covenants under M.C. Rules, 1960 and working of area beyond the grant of surface right for violation of the Rules, 27(2) of the M.C. Rules and for not maintaining proper account for the iron and manganese extracted from lease area but the show cause was issued under the provision of Rule 27 (5) of the M.C. Rules 1960 to make good the breach of conditions with a threat for taking suitable action as deemed proper under the provision of Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 and Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 and again in spite of the proceeding confined to the mineral Concession Rules yet the determination order under Annexure-16 was made considering the violation of provision in other statutes, over which the authority to the decision vide Annexure-16 had no authority. Accordingly, Sri Rath, learned senior counsel appearing for the opposite party no.2 contended that since the show cause notice confined to an action under Section 27(5) of the Mining Concession Rules, there was no occasion for deciding the matter by the competent authority beyond such provision and for undertaking such exercise involving allegation pertaining to certain other statutes, admittedly there is violation of principle of natural justice. It thus claimed that the Revisional Authority after considering this vital aspect involved in the matter has rightly taken a view that the order at Annexure-16 by the competent authority is in gross violation of the principle of natural justice and also contrary to the materials available on record and thus set aside the same. It is, therefore, claimed by Sri Rath, learned senior counsel appearing for the opposite party no.2 that there is as such no illegality in the Revisional order impugned herein leaving any scope for interfering in the same by this Court. Sri A.K.Bose, learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for the O.P.1 stood by the submission of the O.P.2, attempted to justify the impugned order and requested for dismissal of the writ petition. 8. Sri A.K.Bose, learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for the O.P.1 stood by the submission of the O.P.2, attempted to justify the impugned order and requested for dismissal of the writ petition. 8. Considering the rival contentions of the parties and leaving aside the admitted facts concerning execution of lease in favour of the O.P.2 up to the filing of renewal application, as relevant, this Court finds it is concerned with the developments taken place onwards Annexure-12, the show cause notice as against the O.P.2 till the Revisional order under Annexure-1 impugned hereinabove. Considering the show cause notice vide Annexure-12 as vital for the purpose of determination, this Court feels it appropriate to refer to the contents in the notice of show cause under Annexure-12, which reads as hereunder. “Government of Orissa Department of Steel & Mines No.IV(AB)SM-16/2009-1068/SM.Bhubaneswar, the 19.2.2010 To M/s.Arjun Lodha P.O.:Chaibasa, Dist: Singhbhum (W) Bihar. Sub: RML. Application dated 28.10.1995 of M/s.Arjun Ladha for Iron ore over an area of 326.50 hectares in village Harmoto-Pacheri of Keonjhar district. The undersigned is directed to invite reference to the subject noted above and to say that, it is reported by the joint enquiry committee consisting of the A.D.M., Keonjhar, A.C.F., Keonjhar & D.D.M., Joda that following violations are noticed in your mining lease area. (i)The broken area was identified as 51.772 hectares and due to expansion of quarries the excavated area in the Reserve Forest assessed as 59.115 hectares which violates Section-2 of F.C. Act, 1980. The broken up area worked out by the lessee is without any authority for which as many as 6 nos. of cases have been instituted by Barbil Forest Range Office in the Year 2008-09 and 2009-10 which are under investigation. (ii)Construction of road in forest area assessed to 6.317 hectares attracts the provision of Section-2 of F.C Act, 1980 as the road has been constructed in the Reserve Forest without due authority. (iii)Temporary working permission was granted over 48.773 hectares to confine the working the broken area and to maintain safety zone of 1.210 hectares vide MoEF letter No.889/2008/FC dated 05.02.2009. Since you have expanded the broken area in R.F. from 48.773 hectares to 59.115 hectares and broken the safety zone of 1.210 hectares. It violates Section-2 of F.C. Act, 1980. (iv)(a) The consent to operate the mines beyond 31.03.2009 has not yet been obtained from the State Pollution Control Board. Since you have expanded the broken area in R.F. from 48.773 hectares to 59.115 hectares and broken the safety zone of 1.210 hectares. It violates Section-2 of F.C. Act, 1980. (iv)(a) The consent to operate the mines beyond 31.03.2009 has not yet been obtained from the State Pollution Control Board. (b) There is no environmental clearance from MoEF. (v) The overburden has been dumped in the non-forest area crossing the lease boundary which contravenes the provision of the lease covenants under M.C. Rules,1960. (vi) Working of the area beyond granted surface right area is a violation of Rule-27(2) of M.C. Rules 1960 and the Terms & conditions of the lease Deed executed by you. (vii) The iron & manganese ores extracted from the lease area are not accounted for properly in the monthly return. This amounts to suppression of facts with ill motive. Hence, it is hereby noticed under the provisions of Rule 27(5) of M.C. Rules, 1960 to make good the breach of conditions as the case may be, within sixty days from the date of receipt of the notice, failing which action will be taken as deemed proper under the provisions of M&M(D&R) Act, 1957 and M.C. Rules, 1960. Sd/- O/c 19.02.2010 Additional Secretary to Government Memo No. 1069/SM. Bhubaneswar, the 19.02.2010 Copy forwarded to the Director of Mines, Orissa, Bhubaneswar/ Collector, Keonjhar/ Deputy Director of Mines, Joda for information and necessary action. Sd/- O/c 19.02.2010 Additional Secretary to Government” Reading of the aforesaid notice of show cause under Annexure-12, it is made clear that the show cause notice is indicative of violation of certain provisions of the F.C. Act, 1980, conditions of the lease between the parties, provision of M.C. Rules 1960 and also without having consent to operate the mines beyond 31.3.2009, further not maintaining proper accounts of Iron and a Manganese ores extracted over the lease area with intention to suppression of facts with ill motive. The show cause notice clearly indicates that the notice was issued contemplating an action under Rule 27 (5) of the M.C.Rules, 1960 with further disclosure that for the violation of the provisions referred to therein above, the petitioner was to make good the breach of conditions as the case may be within sixty days from the date of receipt of notice failing which the O.P.2 was threatened for action as deemed proper under the provisions of Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 and Mineral Concession Rules, 1960. For better appreciation, it is necessary to get into Rule 27 (5) of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960, which reads as follows : [(5) If the lessee makes any default in the payment of royalty as required under Section 9 or payment of dead rent as required under Section 9A or commits a breach of any of the conditions specified in sub-rules (1), (2) and (3), except the condition referred to in clause (f) of sub-rule (1),the State Government shall give notice to the lessee requiring him to pay the royalty or dead rent or remedy the breach, as the case may be, within sixty days from the date of the receipt of the notice and if the royalty or dead rent is not paid or the breach is not remedied within the said period, the State Government may, without prejudice to any other proceedings that may be taken against him, determine the lease and forfeit the whole or part of the security deposit.] The rule quoted hereinabove makes it clear that on the lessee’s committing any default in payment of royalty under Section 9 or payment of dead rent as required under Section 9 or commit breach of any of the conditions specified in Rules- (1),(2) and (3) except the conditions referred to in Clause (f) of sub-rule (1), the State Government shall have to give notice to the lessee to pay such amount in such heads within sixty days from the date of receipt of the notice and in the event the amount so claimed are not paid or the breach is not remedied within the said period, State Government may without prejudice to any other proceeding taken against the lessee, determine the lease and forfeit the whole or part of the security deposit. 9. 9. The State Government has admitted that the opposite party no.2 has given a detailed response to the show cause notice under Annexure-12 vide Annexure-13. Perusal of the show cause replay, annexure-13, also clearly demonstrates the opposite party no.2 submitted its reply touching all the aspects involved in the show cause notice. Coming through the pleadings and the documents appended in the counter of the opposite party no.2, it appears after the show cause notice vide Annexure-12 was issued and the opposite party no.2 filed his response to the show cause notice vide Annexure-13, in paragraph-9, sub-paragraph (iv),the opposite party no.2 made the following reply: (iv) “That the joint verification report held in the year 2004 was accepted by the State Government and acted upon by the State Government as well as the Government of India. The letters of recommendation for grant of Temporary Working Permission and for other clearances were applied for only on the basis of the assessment and demarcation of the broken up area assessed by the joint verification committee of 2004. After the recommendation of the Special Secretary to Government, Ministry of Environment & Forest, Temporary Working Permission was granted by the Government of India in the Ministry of Environment & Forest on 5.2.2009. The Collector, Keonjhar allotted non-forest land in favour of the State Forest Department for raising compensatory aforestation in lieu of the proposed diversion of virgin forest land of opposite party no.2 in its letter dated 12.5.2009 addressed to the DFO, Keonjhar. The copy of the letter dated 5.2.2009 i.e. grant of Temporary Working Permission issued by Ministry of Environment & Forest and letter dated 12.5.2009 issued by the Collector, Keonjhar are annexed and marked herewith as Annexure-D/2 & E/2 respectively. The same was annexed to the Revision Petition before the Mining Tribunal. The DFO, demanded payment of Rs.20,16,47,120/- as NPV by letter dated 25.1.2010 and further demanded a sum of Rs.3,35,00,480/- towards additional NPV by letter dated 5th June, 2010. The lessee opposite party no.2 deposited a sum of Rs.20,16,47,120/- towards NPV on 29.7.2010 and additional NPV of Rs.3,35,00,480/- on 12.8.2010 with an undertaking to pay further as and when demanded. The compensatory aforestation cost has not yet been demanded by DFO though the lessee is prepared to deposit the same to expedite the Process.” 10. The lessee opposite party no.2 deposited a sum of Rs.20,16,47,120/- towards NPV on 29.7.2010 and additional NPV of Rs.3,35,00,480/- on 12.8.2010 with an undertaking to pay further as and when demanded. The compensatory aforestation cost has not yet been demanded by DFO though the lessee is prepared to deposit the same to expedite the Process.” 10. Pleadings of opposite party no.2 in the aforesaid paragraph makes it clear that basing on the demand of the DFO, a sum of Rs. 20,16,47,120/- as NPV and a further sum of Rs.3,35,00,480/- towards additional NPV by its letter dated 25.1.2010 and 5th June, 2010 respectively, the lessee-opposite party no.2 has already deposited the aforesaid amount on 29.7.2010 and 12.8.2010 respectively. The opposite party no.2 has a clear case that it was all though continuing the mining activities in respect of non-forest land being permitted by Deputy Director, Mines, Joda, which were all the considerations before grant of temporary working permits in favour of the lessee. Scan of the order determining the lease in favour of the opposite party no.2 appearing at Annexure-16, the subject considered therein, as reflected at the top of Aannexure-16 reads as follows: “IIlegal mining in violation of Sec.2 of F.C. Act, 1980, Rule-27 of MC Rules, 1960, provisions of the Environment Protection Act, 1986 and the EIA Notifications, the provisions of the Air (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 and the Water (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act., 1974 and provision of regulation 2 of 1956 (the Orissa scheduled Areas Transfer of Immovable Property (by scheduled Tribes) Regulation, 1956) read with the amendment in 2002.” Further scan of the detail order vide Annexure-16, it appears that the competent authority while deciding the proceeding pursuant to Annexure-12 has exceeded its consideration beyond the subject involved in the show cause under Annexure-12, which admittedly confined a consideration under Rule 27(5) of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 and with a purpose to make good the breach of conditions. This Court observes the competent authority has exceeded its jurisdiction while deciding the issue involved in the show cause notice under Annexure-12 and there remains no doubt in it. This Court observes the competent authority has exceeded its jurisdiction while deciding the issue involved in the show cause notice under Annexure-12 and there remains no doubt in it. Further Rule 27(5) of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960, as quoted hereinabove, clearly shows that in the case of violation under Section 27(5) of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960, the State Government has to issue a further notice to the lessee requiring him to pay royalty or dead rent or remedy the breach, as the case may be, within sixty days from the date of the receipt of the notice and in the event of failure, the State Government may proceed for taking such actions prescribed therein. This Court finds since the notice under Annexure-12 was issued contemplating action under Section 27(5) of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960, upon consideration of the show cause, the State Government could have at the maximum issued a notice to the lessee for remedying the breach within sixty days and on failure of compliance of direction therein by the O.P.2 in making good the breach of the conditions could have proceeded in the matter of determination of the lease, in absence of which the order vide Annexure-16 cannot be sustained. This Court also finds the order under Annexure-16 was otherwise bad for being not following the statutory requirements prescribed in Rule 27 (5) of the M.C. Rules. 11. As discussed herein above, the show cause notice vide Annexure-12 is indicative if violation of provision of Forest Conservation Act, 1980, action contrary to the condition in the consent to operate by State Pollution Control Board etc. Entire scan of case records nowhere brings any ascertainment of the allegations whether there been any violation of the Forest Conservation Act or Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 or the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 by the competent authority. Under no circumstance, any action against the O.P.2 on the premises of violation of any provision of the above Acts could have been undertaken. It is surprise to note that the competent authority as appearing at page-6 internal of Annexure-16 has taken into consideration the issues other than the issues involved in the show cause notice under Annexure-12, a procedure unknown to law. It is surprise to note that the competent authority as appearing at page-6 internal of Annexure-16 has taken into consideration the issues other than the issues involved in the show cause notice under Annexure-12, a procedure unknown to law. In the above backdrop of the case, this Court scanned the impugned order at Annexure-1 passed by the Revisional Authority and found that the Revisional Authority has not only gone into details of the matter but the Revisional Authority also considered each aspect involved in the revision, decided all the issues one by one and rejected the stand of State by giving cogent reason. 12. in the conclusion, we are of the considered view that the present writ petition filed by the State in the circumstances as narrated herein above, does not merit consideration and as a consequence, this Court while dismissing the writ petition, confirms the order passed by the Revisional Authority under Annexure-1. The writ petition thus stands dismissed. No cost. INDRAJIT MAHANTY, J. I agree Petition dismissed.