ORDER : Issue notice to the respondents. The learned Additional Government Advocate waives service for the respondents. 2. Considering the narrow controversy involved in the petitions, the same are taken up for final disposal immediately. 3. In W.P.No.299/2020, a quarrying lease was executed in favour of the petitioner on 28th December 2018 under the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1994 (for short ‘the said Rules’). By the impugned order at Annexure-A dated 1, December 2019, the said lease has been cancelled. There is a communication issued on 18th September 2019 prior to Annexure-A addressed by the Deputy Conservator of Forest to the Senior Geologist of the State by which, a request was made to cancel the lease. 4. Even the learned Additional Government Advocate, on instructions, does not dispute the factual position that a show cause notice was not issued to the petitioner before passing the impugned order dated 17th December 2019. 5. In W.P.No.303/2020, the facts are similar. Even in this case, the order of cancellation of lease was issued (Annexure-A) on 17th December 2019 on the basis of the communication dated 18th September 2019 issued prior to Annexure-A addressed by the Deputy Conservator of Forest to the Senior Geologist of the State by which, a request was made to cancel the lease. 6. Even in this case, the learned Additional Government Advocate, on instructions, does not dispute the factual position that a show cause notice was not issued to the petitioner before passing the impugned order dated 17th December 2019. 7. The power to determine the lease granted under the said Rules is specifically conferred by sub-rule (3) of Rule 6 of the said Rules. The condition precedent for the cancellation of lease is firstly that a notice is required to be issued by the Competent Authority requiring the lessee to remedy the alleged breaches committed by him within a period of thirty days and if the breaches are not remedied within a stipulated period, the Competent Authority may determine the lease after giving an opportunity of being heard to the lessee. 8. In these two petitions, both the conditions precedent are not satisfied. Hence, the impugned orders dated 17th December 2019 (Annexure-A to both the petitions) are contrary to sub-rule (3) of Rule 6 of the said Rules and in breach of elementary principles of natural justice. 8. In these two petitions, both the conditions precedent are not satisfied. Hence, the impugned orders dated 17th December 2019 (Annexure-A to both the petitions) are contrary to sub-rule (3) of Rule 6 of the said Rules and in breach of elementary principles of natural justice. It is not necessary to set aside the recommendation of the Forest department inasmuch as the decision to determine the lease has to taken by the Competent Authority by exercising a power under sub-rule (3) of Rule 6 of the said Rules. Accordingly, we pass the following order: (i) The impugned orders dated 17th December 2019 (Annexure-A to both the petitions) are set aside only on the ground of breach of principles of natural justice; (ii) This order will not preclude the Competent Authority from issuing a notice under sub-rule (3) of Rule 6 of the said Rules and from initiating appropriate action in accordance with law against the petitioner; (iii) As observed earlier, the action of determination of the lease cannot be taken without giving an opportunity to the petitioners of being personally heard; (iv) Accordingly, the petitions are disposed of. (v) We make it clear that we have made no adjudication on the merits of the controversy.