ORDER : The petitioner has assailed an Order dated 23rd December 2019 passed by the fourth respondent acting on the Orders of the third respondent (Regional Commissioner) by which the Certificate of Compliance in Form B1 dated 17th December 2018 was suspended on the purported ground that it was issued without reference to two circulars, one issued by the Commissioner, Department of Survey Settlement and Land Records, dated 20th April 2018 and another issued by the first respondent dated 6th August 2009. By the impugned Order, the third respondent directed the reconsideration of Form B1 in accordance with the circular issued by the third respondent dated 6th December 2019. The petitioner has also assailed the consequent notice dated 15th February 2020 issued by the fifth respondent intimating the petitioner about the suspension of the Certificate of Compliance. 2. The documents annexed to the writ petition reveal that the petitioner had filed an application in Form A on 24th January 2015 for a licence to establish a stone crushing unit accompanied by a declaration in Form A1 that the location of the stone crusher conformed to the requirement of sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 6 of the Karnataka Regulation of Stone Crushers Act, 2011 (henceforth referred to as “the said Act of 2011”). On receipt of the application for grant of licence, a joint inspection was conducted on 09th May 2017 following which, the Deputy Commissioner, Kolar, being the Licensing Authority issued a notification dated 6th December 2018 which was gazetted on 13th December 2018 declaring 2-00 Acres in Sy. No.167 of Agara village, Malur Taluk, Kolar District, as a Safer Zone under sub-section (3) of Section 6 of the said Act of 2011. Later the fifth respondent issued a Certificate of Compliance in Form B1 on 17th December 2018 in accordance with the sub-rule (2) of Rule 3 of the Karnataka Regulation of Stone Crushers Rules, 2012 (henceforth referred as “the said Rules of 2012”). The petitioner then applied for a consent for establishment which was granted by the Karnataka State Pollution Control Board in the name of Iqra Granite Crusher in terms of the Consent For Establishment dated 4th January 2019. 3. The petitioner then applied for a consent for establishment which was granted by the Karnataka State Pollution Control Board in the name of Iqra Granite Crusher in terms of the Consent For Establishment dated 4th January 2019. 3. Even before the Licensing Authority could grant a licence to the petitioner, the fourth respondent acting on the directions of the third respondent issued the impugned order suspending the Certificate of Compliance in Form B1 on the purported ground that it was issued without reference to the Circular dated 20th April 2018 issued by the Commissioner, Department of Survey Settlement and Land Records, Bengaluru and the Circular dated 6th August 2009 issued by the Government. The fourth respondent as delegate of the third respondent thus, directed the fifth respondent to reconsider the issuance of the Certificate of Compliance in accordance with the Circular dated 6th August 2009 issued by the third respondent. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the impugned order is liable to be set aside on the short ground that it is issued in complete violation of the principles of natural justice, as the petitioner was not heard before suspension of the Certificate of Compliance. He also contended that the third respondent is not authorized under the said Act of 2011 or the said Rules of 2012 to suspend or cancel the Certificate of Compliance issued under sub-rule (2) of Rule 3 of the said Rules of 2012. He further contended that the Certificate of Compliance was issued after complying all the requirements of law and that the petitioner has spent enormous sums of money in setting up a plant in anticipation of grant of the licence. The learned counsel brought to our notice the reports of the Assistant Commissioner dated 1st February 2018 and 09th July 2018 addressed to the sixth respondent (Senior Geologist) and contended that the Assistant Commissioner had examined the Form A1 in the light of the circulars issued by the Government. The learned counsel contended that the third respondent has thrown a spanner into the establishment of the plant by passing the impugned Order. 5. The learned Additional Government Advocate submitted that the Certificate of Compliance was issued in respect of 02.00 Acres in Sy. The learned counsel contended that the third respondent has thrown a spanner into the establishment of the plant by passing the impugned Order. 5. The learned Additional Government Advocate submitted that the Certificate of Compliance was issued in respect of 02.00 Acres in Sy. No.167 of Agara village which was shown as a pasture land reserved for the Government and that therefore, the petitioner was not eligible to seek a licence to establish a stone crushing unit on the Government land. 6. It is seen from a letter dated 9th July 2018 addressed by the Assistant Commissioner to the Senior Geologist that Sy. No.167 of Agara village measures 390.31 Acres. The gazette notification dated 13th December 2018 issued by the Licensing Authority declaring Safer Zones within its limit disclosed that Sy.No.167 of Agara village was a Government land. The Certificate of Compliance in Form B1 issued pursuant to the notification dated 13th December 2018 disclosed that the location applied by the petitioner was a Government land and yet was declared a Safer Zone. 7. The scheme of the said Act of 2011 provides that a person desirous of establishing a stone crusher should file an application in Form A which should be accompanied by a declaration in Form A1 that the chosen site for establishment of a stone crusher lies within a Safer Zone as prescribed under subsection (1) of Section 6 of the said Act of 2011. Thereafter, the Licensing Authority is under a statutory duty under sub-rule (2) of Rule 3 of the said Rules of 2012, to conduct a joint inspection of the location through the officers as specified in sub-section (3) of Section 6 of the said Act of 2011 to ascertain whether the location lies within the Safer Zone. The Licensing Authority shall within three months from the date of receipt of application notify and declare the Safer Zones within its jurisdiction specifying the area and the limits. Once a notification is issued declaring that the location applied for is a Safer Zone, the Licensing Authority shall issue a Certificate of Compliance in Form B1 as prescribed under sub-rule (2) of Rule 3 of the said Rules of 2012. Under subsection (3) of Section 4 of the said Act of 2011, an applicant seeking a licence should thereafter obtain a Consent for Operation from the Karnataka State Pollution Control Board. Under subsection (3) of Section 4 of the said Act of 2011, an applicant seeking a licence should thereafter obtain a Consent for Operation from the Karnataka State Pollution Control Board. Once an applicant secures and furnishes a Consent for Operation as stated above, the Licensing Authority is bound to grant the licence to the applicant in the prescribed form, as mandated under sub-section (2) of Section 6-A of the said Act of 2011. 8. A perusal of the aforesaid provisions of law would indicate that the fourth respondent as a delegate of the third respondent is not empowered under the said Act of 2011 or the said Rules of 2012 to suspend or stop or cancel the Certificate of Compliance issued under sub-rule (2) of Rule 3 of the said Rules of 2012. It has no role of whatsoever nature in the matter of examining the issuance of a Certificate of Compliance under sub-rule (2) of Rule 3 of the Rules of 2012. The third respondent has only the powers of an Appellate Authority under Section 15 of the said Act of 2011 but is neither a revisional nor a supervising authority over the actions of the Licensing Authority. It is trite that unless a statute confers revisional power or supervisory power on an authority, such a power cannot be exercised. Thus, the impugned order passed by the fourth respondent as the delegate of the third respondent is wholly without any corresponding power conferred on it under the said Act of 2011. 9. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the impugned Order is passed without following the principles of natural justice since the petitioner was legitimately entitled to expect the issuance of a licence soon after a Consent for Operation was issued by the Karnataka State Pollution Control Board and thus on this ground too the impugned order is liable to be quashed. 10. The impugned Order is also liable to be set aside on yet another ground namely that it does not bear any reference to the Certificate of Compliance issued to the petitioner but bears reference to the Certificate of Compliance issued to Mr. A.N.Prakash of M/s.Trisha Stone Crusher. 11. In that view of the matter, the writ petition is allowed. 10. The impugned Order is also liable to be set aside on yet another ground namely that it does not bear any reference to the Certificate of Compliance issued to the petitioner but bears reference to the Certificate of Compliance issued to Mr. A.N.Prakash of M/s.Trisha Stone Crusher. 11. In that view of the matter, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order bearing No.RCB/TAHC/LND/23/2019 dated 23rd December 2019 (Annexure-B) passed by the fourth respondent is quashed on the ground that neither the third nor the fourth respondent had any competence in law to pass an order suspending or putting on hold or setting at naught the Certificate of Compliance issued to the petitioner. The consequent notice bearing No.M.I.N/C.R/02/2019-20/3571 dated 15th February 2020 (Annexure-A) issued by the fifth respondent is also quashed. This will however not preclude the fifth respondent/Licensing Authority from taking such steps as are permitted in law to rescind or alter or reconsider the grant of a Certificate of Compliance in respect of the location mentioned in the application filed by the petitioner, if it is found that the petitioner has obtained the same by suppressing any material fact or by placing false/fabricated documents for procuring the Certificate of Compliance but such steps shall be in accordance with law and after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner.