JUDGMENT : I. Mahanty, J. The present writ application has come to be filed by the State of Odisha (Department of Steel & Mines) seeking to challenge the Order dated 15.01.2014 passed by the Revisional Authority, (Government of India-Opposite Party No. 1) in Revision Application No.22/(46)/2012-RC-1. 2. It appears that the Deputy Director of Mines, Joda Circle, Keonjhar vide Order No. 3716 dated 15.05.2012 issued a communication holding therein that the mining lessee (M/s.Arjun Ladha) had extracted mineral ore excavated from the illegal pits and consequently, such excavated ore should be treated as unlawful. Challenging the said decision the mining lessee-O.P.2, namely, M/s. Arjun Ladha preferred Revision Application No.22/(46)/2012-RC-I under Section 30 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the “MMDR Act, 1957”) read with Rule 55 of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the “MC Rules, 1960”) dated 29.6.2012. This Revision was finally heard and allowed with the following observations and directions: “22. I have carefully examined the facts on record and the submissions and arguments submitted by the Revisionist as well as on behalf of the State Government. It appears to be an admitted fact that that the impugned order is contrary to the findings and orders of this Tribunal in RA No.22(6)/201-RC-1 dated 29.11.2011. The State Government has challenged the said decision in the High Court but as stated by the Revisionist, there is no “stay” granted by the Hon’ble High Court and as such the said findings and the order are valid and operative. Any findings contrary to that, till the matter is decided, cannot be tenable in the eye of law. The arguments advanced by the Revisionist in this regard merit consideration. 23. The impugned order has also been challenged by the Revisionist on the ground that it has been passed without giving any opportunity of hearing and no show cause notice was issued before passing the impugned order so as to enable the Revisionist to submit his view point. The State Government has not denied the allegation but on the other hand, contended that the assessment of legally and illegally raised ore is based on the physical survey of the area and examination of the dimensions of pits dug and their respective locations. The State Government has not denied the allegation but on the other hand, contended that the assessment of legally and illegally raised ore is based on the physical survey of the area and examination of the dimensions of pits dug and their respective locations. The State Government’s contention is that prior notice to the Revisionist could have caused the Revisionist to interfere in the process of investigation. This contention of the State Government cannot, however, be accepted as valid. The findings of the facts without hearing the other side cannot be held to be tenable in the eye of law. A physical survey of the area and examination of the dimensions of the pits cannot be done behind the back of the affected party and if it is so done, it cannot be held to be sustainable. While disposing of the SLP filed by the State Government, the Supreme Court has also very clearly directed the State Government to determine the area by an appropriate method and not by guess work. 24. In view of the observations above, the impugned order is set aside and this Revision Application is allowed. The State Government may, however, cause re-verification in presence of the Revisionist or their duly authorized representative and pass appropriate orders after giving adequate opportunity to the Revisionist firm to present their view point. The RA accordingly stands allowed.” 3. The State of Odisha (petitioner herein) have sought to challenge the aforesaid order and directions contained therein essentially on the ground that, the determination of “lawfully extracted minerals” made by the “District Level Squad” in consonance with the direction of the Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 21.03.2012 in SLP(C) No. 33926/10, inasmuch as, the said direction was issued to the State to determine the legality and illegality of the extracted ore and “never directed the petitioner (State) to grant any opportunity of hearing to Opposite Party No.2-M/s.Arjun Ladha. 4. It is essential herein to take note of certain cases and orders passed in relation to the present case hereinbelow: (i) This Court in W.P.(C) No. 17719 of 2009 vide order dated 16.02.2010 directed as follows: “Since it has been inter alia mentioned that working of 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 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 ratio of the working area vis-à-vis encroached area and take a 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. The Misc. Case is accordingly disposed of.” (ii) The aforesaid order of this Court was the subject matter of challenge before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 33926/2010 and the Hon’ble Supreme Court disposed of the same vide Order dated 21.03.2012 with the following effect: “After arguing the matter at some length Mr. Raju Ramachandran, learned senior counsel for the petitioners-State submits that the petitioners are ready to comply with the directions issued by the High Court and to determine the quantity of iron and manganese ores legally extracted by the respondents and that which has been extracted from out of the encroached area within a period of six weeks from today. He further submits that the determination will be made on an appropriate basis and not necessarily on “guess work” as observed by the High Court. He states that such quantity as is found to have been lawfully extracted shall be allowed to be lifted by the respondents while proper orders regarding the rest shall be passed and conveyed to respondents to enable them to seek redress in appropriate proceedings before the competent court/authority. 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 16.02.2010 shall prejudice the process of determination of legally and illegally extracted quantities of iron and manganese ores. We make it clear that nothing stated by the High Court in its order dated 16.02.2010 shall prejudice the process of determination of legally and illegally extracted quantities of iron and manganese ores. No costs.” (iii) The State-Petitioner in the present writ application claim to have purportedly complied with the aforesaid direction of the Hon’ble Supreme Court by carrying out verification/measurement through the “District Level Squad” consisting of 8 officers on 3.5.2012 and the said report of the Squad which carried out inspection on 1.5.2012 and 2.5.2012 for the purpose of their convenient is quoted as hereunder: “During the inspection by the District Level Squad comprising of S/Shri B.K. Sahoo, SIM, Joda, P. Sahoo, SI, Barbil PS, C. Naik, ACTO, Barbil, A.B. Sethy, M. Barbil, P. Naik, Forester Joda, K.C. Sethy, R.I. Barbil, A.M. Mahapatra, Chairman, Barbil and P.K. Behera, Chief Surveyor-Joda, to the ML Area of Harmotto-Pachen Iron and Manganese Mines over an area of 326.5 Hect of M/s. Arjun Lodha, the findings are as follows: 1. The lease held by M/s Arjun Lodha over an area of 326.5 Hects. for Iron and Mn. Ore in village Hormotto-Pacheri was granted surface right for 51.772 Hects inside Karo R/F out of which 48.773 Hects. is broken land and 1.210 Hects is Safety Zone broken & 1.789 Hects is road (i.e. all the surface right granted area is shown as broken land. Expanding all the 19 quarries available in the mines within the broken up area the lessee has excavated over an area of 59.115 Hects against the approved broken up area of 51.772 hects. Accordingly all such 19 quarries more or less are affected by such illegal expansion which sums up to 7.343 Hects. Since minerals have been extracted from illegal/expanded quarries and stacked in the stockyard, the minerals extracted from that quarry may be treated as illegal. 2. The lessee had carried out illegal mining outside the granted surface right area and excavated a quantity of Manganese ore 30,438.450 MT (57,978 cu.m. taking recovery factor as per the Mining Scheme as 30% and bulk density 1.75) and Iron ore of 1,34,128.800 MT (68,784 cu.m taking recovery factor as per the Mining Scheme as 65% and bulk density 3), illegally in the Gramya Jungle of 5.32 Hects. as well as tenanted tribal land of 4.38 Hects. as well as tenanted tribal land of 4.38 Hects. Remarks: The lessee has extracted minerals from outside the granted surface right area which is illegal and all such materials (Iron & Mn. Ore) excavated from the illegal pits and stacked may be treated as unlawful.” 5. It is submitted on behalf of the State that the aforesaid inspection was carried out in compliance of the Order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 21.3.2012 as referred hereinabove in Para-4(ii) and consequently, the same should not and ought not to have been set aside by the Revisional Authority. 6. Mr. A.K. Bose, learned Asst. Solicitor General on behalf of Opposite Party No.1 supported the Order passed by the Revisional Authority and stated that no prejudice would be caused to the State by carrying out the directions of the Revisional Authority, since, the Revisional Authority has directed re-verification in presence of the mining lessee or their authorized representative and consequently, no cause of action exists for challenging the order of the Revisional Authority. 7. Mr. R.K. Rath, learned Senior Advocate for Opposite Party No.2-M/s.Arjun Ladha (mining lessee) also supported the directions passed by the Revisional Authority and submitted that, as would be evident from the directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Para-4(ii) above, the Hon’ble Supreme Court had made it clear that the physical survey of the area has to be done by an “appropriate method” and not by “guess work” as earlier directed by this Court. It is alleged that the report of the “District Level Squad”, followed no method whatsoever and was in fact purely based on “guess work” and/or surmise, while the State had specifically submitted before the Hon’ble Supreme Court not to resort to. It is further submitted on behalf of Opposite Party No.2 that, the Petitioner-State and its officers have been effectively resorting to unlawful means and justifications to deny Opposite Party No.2 the rights vested in a mining lessee and also in direct violation of the Hon’ble High Court’s Order dated 16.02.2010 as well as the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s Order dated 21.03.2012. 8. 8. It is reiterated on behalf of Opposite Party No.2 that the Hon’ble Supreme Court, never issued any direction to constitute a “District Level Squad” and instead disposed of the Special Leave Petition, recording the submissions made on behalf of the State that they are ready to comply with the directions issued by the Orissa High Court as directed in its order dated 16.02.2010. In other words, the Hon’ble Supreme Court recorded the undertaking by the learned counsel representing the State that it requires further time to comply with the Hon’ble High Court’s order and accordingly, the Hon’ble Supreme Court was pleased to extend six weeks’ time as prayed for by the State to complete the process of determination. It is further submitted that since the measurement would be made of the mining leasehold of Opposite Party No.2, it was incumbent by the rules of natural justice itself that, a notice was required to be served on Opposite Party No.2 whose presence, at the time of such determination would be of immense value to protect its own interest. Consequently, the stand of the State that a measurement done in their absence (i.e., in the absence of the lessee) would not only be prejudicial but also indicates the lack of bona fide on behalf of the State which purportedly carried out the alleged measurements. It is further submitted that the State lack the necessary bona fide in filing the writ application, since the direction of the Revisional Authority is to be carried out by re-verification in the presence of the revisionist by adopting “appropriate methods” of measurement. 9. Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and on perusing the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as this Court as noted hereinabove and the order impugned herein i.e. Order dated 15.01.2014 passed by the Revisional Authority, we are of the considered view that the State was required to comply with the direction of the Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 21.03.2012 both in letter and spirit. 10. It appears that the State have issued a Notification dated 11.05.2010 by the Department of Steel and Mines constituting the “State Level Task Force” as well as the “District Level Task Force”. 10. It appears that the State have issued a Notification dated 11.05.2010 by the Department of Steel and Mines constituting the “State Level Task Force” as well as the “District Level Task Force”. Such Task Forces were created for “reviewing and monitoring of mining activities including illegal mining” and once such a Task Force had been constituted by the State, it would be obligatory on the part of such Task Force constituted on the direction of the Hon’ble Supreme Court to conduct any enquiry, measurement etc. for such purposes. It is also permissible for such a Task Force to take the assistance of any officers of the Indian Bureau of Mines, who possess special knowledge to carry out such a task. But it cannot be accepted that, “District Level Squad” can be accepted as a replacement for the “District Level Task Force” which has been duly notified on 11.5.2010. In other words, the task for reviewing and monitoring of mining activities including illegal mining has to be conducted by the “District Level Task Force” as constituted by the State of Odisha in the Department of Steel and Mines on the directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and not any other body. This body alone is authorized to do the needful in the matter. We are also further of the considered view that while the “Task Force” seeks to ascertain whether any illegal mining has been committed by the lessee or not, it would be incumbent under the principles of natural justice to give notice to the lessee and permit such lessee to be present at the time of such verification. 11. In conclusion, we are of the considered view that the present writ application filed by the State in the circumstances as narrated hereinabove, does not merit any further consideration and we further direct that the re-verification as directed by the Revisional Authority has to be carried out by the District Level Task Force by adopting “appropriate scientific method of measurement” as undertaken by the State before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the presence of the lessee and/or their duly authorized representatives at the earliest. 12. The writ application is disposed of accordingly.