JUDGMENT : This writ petition is against the order dated 04.01.2019 passed by the Joint Secretary, Department of Mines and Geology, Government of Jharkhand, whereby and whereunder, two decisions have been taken; (I) Firstly the lease agreement over an area of 239.99 hectare for mining iron ore has been terminated. (II) And secondly the petitioner has been directed to hand over the possession of leasehold area within 15 days from the date of receipt of the impugned order, in favour of District Mining Officer, Chaibasa. 2. Mr. Amarendra Sharan, learned senior counsel representing the petitioner on following grounds have assailed the impugned order :- (i) Under the provision of Rule 12(10) of the Mineral Concession Rules, 2016, it has been stipulated that in case of violation of condition, stipulated under Section 9, or Section 9(A) or Section 9(B) or Section 9(C) or Rule-13 of Mineral Concession Rules, 2015 or commits a breach of any of the condition stipulated in Sub-Rule 1, 2, 3 and 4, the State Government shall give notice to the lessee, requiring him to pay the violative or dead rent or remedy the breach, as the case may be, within 60 days from the date of receipt of notice, and if the royalty or dead rent is not paid or the breach is not remedy within the said period, the State Government may, without prejudice to any other proceeding, that may be taken against him, terminate the lease and hold the whole or part of the performance security. It has been argued by referring to the impugned order that the aforesaid order itself stipulates that the notice, in terms of the Provision of Rule 12(10) of the Mineral Concession Rules, 2016, giving therein 60 days statutory time, has been issued by the District Mining Officer, Chaibasa and therefore, he is having no jurisdiction to issue the aforesaid notice and, hence, on this ground alone, the very initiation of proceeding is in violation of the provision of the Mineral Concession Rules, 2016. (ii) The notice has been issued by the District Mining Officer, Chaibasa, but the Member, Board of Revenue has been delegated with the power to look into the alleged irregularities and on the basis of the report, submitted by it, the State Government has taken decision (impugned), hence, there is no compliance of the Principle of natural justice in view of the settled position of law that if an authority is issuing notice, it is incumbent upon the said authority to take final decision, then only it can be said that the proper appreciation of the factual aspect and having not done so, the same will be said to be in violation of Principle of natural justice, reason being that the Principle of natural justice is to be observed for appreciation of the factual aspects, which is valuable right of a party, against whom, any adverse decision has been proposed to be taken, otherwise it will be said to be sheer formality. According to the petitioner, in the instant case, show-cause has been issued by the District Mining Officer, Chaibasa and heard by the Board of Revenue and final decision has been taken by the Department of Mining and Geology Department, Government of Jharkhand and, therefore, the proper appreciation of facts have not been made. (iii) The petitioner has not supplied with the copy of the finding given by the Board of Revenue, therefore, a valuable right to cross the adverse finding has been denied to the petitioner (iv) The ground, upon which, the decision has been taken is vague and non-est. 3. Mr. Ajit Kumar, learned Advocate General representing the State by referring to the background of the case that a writ petition has been filed by the petitioner, being W.P.(C) No. 534 of 2018 (Annexure-12 to the writ petition) wherein a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, in which, by putting reliance upon the judgment rendered in the case of Common Cause Vs. Ajit Kumar, learned Advocate General representing the State by referring to the background of the case that a writ petition has been filed by the petitioner, being W.P.(C) No. 534 of 2018 (Annexure-12 to the writ petition) wherein a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, in which, by putting reliance upon the judgment rendered in the case of Common Cause Vs. Union of India & Ors., as reported in (2017) 9 SCC 499 , while dismissing the writ petition has declined to issue direction upon the respondent-State to issue Transit challans to the petitioner, against which, intra Court, being L.P.A. No.351 of 2018, as has been preferred by the petitioner, which is lying pending before this Court, an order has been passed, directing the petitioner to deposit the required amount for issuance of Transit permits/challans, but at paragraph-10 of the aforesaid order, it has been stipulated that to the effect that rest of the conditions for issuance of Transit permits/challans shall be applicable in the facts of the case like validity of very type of licence, permit, clearance etc., therefore, the petitioner is required to abide by the conditions which is pre-requisite for issuance of challans. 4. Learned Advocate General has, therefore, sought for adjournment for few days for filing proper counter-affidavit so that the case may be disposed of finally. 5. Mr. Rajiv Sinha, learned Additional Solicitor General of India by reverting the stand taken by the petitioner, pertaining to violation of Principle of natural justice on the ground that the show cause has been issued by one authority and enquired into by the another and final decision has been taken by third one by referring to the Rules of Business, authority is supposed to function and following the same, the decision has been taken. He further submits that the main point is to be assessed by the Court, regarding the prejudice. However, he has sought for time to file affidavit, if any. 6. In view thereof, let this case be listed on 30th January, 2019. 7. Learned Advocate General is being directed that he will file counter-affidavit duly sworn by the Secretary of the Department by serving it upon the learned counsel for the petitioner by 24th January, 2019, so that if any response, the same be filed before the next date of listing. 7. Learned Advocate General is being directed that he will file counter-affidavit duly sworn by the Secretary of the Department by serving it upon the learned counsel for the petitioner by 24th January, 2019, so that if any response, the same be filed before the next date of listing. During the said period, learned Additional Solicitor General of India, if so wishes, may also file affidavit. 8. Argument has been advanced by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner for passing the interim order. It has been submitted that the operation of the order dated 04.01.2019 may be kept in abeyance, on the ground that the petitioner has got strong prima facie case and if the said order will not kept in abeyance, the petitioner will suffer irreparable loss and injury for the reason that the said order also contains a direction for handing over the possession of the entire area in question in favour of the District Mining Officer, Chaibasa. Further, argument has been made that it is the subsisting lease and mining operation is going on and on that account also, the petitioner will suffer monetary loss, which cannot be compensated by the State authority for the aforesaid period. 9. Learned Advocate General as also Additional Solicitor General of India has jointly submitted that since there is allegation of violation and terms of the lease and, therefore, allowing the petitioner to go for mining operation will amount to permit the petitioner to perpetuate the irregularity. However, he has fairly submitted that the order of status quo may be passed till the next date. 10. Having heard learned counsel for the parties on the point of passing an interim relief after appreciating and going across the reasons assigned in the impugned order, which pertains to violation of certain terms and conditions of the statutory provision, under which, the license has been issued in favour of the petitioner. 10. Having heard learned counsel for the parties on the point of passing an interim relief after appreciating and going across the reasons assigned in the impugned order, which pertains to violation of certain terms and conditions of the statutory provision, under which, the license has been issued in favour of the petitioner. Therefore, I am not inclined to pass an order of keeping the decision of the State authority, by which the lease deed for the rest of the period has been cancelled to kept it in abeyance, during the pendency of the writ petition, it is for the reason that if the said prayer will be allowed at this stage, it will amount to perpetuating the irregularity, as has been reflected in the impugned order and further the said prayer is the main prayer made in the writ petition, if allowed, at the interim stage, it will lead to allowing the whole writ petition at this stage, therefore, this Court is not inclined to pass order for keeping the part of the order by which the lease has been cancelled, in abeyance and as such the same is, therefore, rejected, in consequence thereof no mining work be allowed to be carried out. 11. However, since the final hearing for this case has been fixed on 30th January, 2019 and there is direction for handing over the possession of the mining area, in favour of the District Mining Officer, Chaibasa within 15 days, which period will come to an end on 19th January, 2019 therefore, in order to avoid multiplicity of proceeding and to avoid creation of third party rights, it would be just and proper to direct to maintain the status-quo, so far land in question is concerned, as exist today. 12. Accordingly, list this case on 30.01.2019.