ORDER : Issue notice to the respondents. 2. The learned Additional Government Advocate takes notice for the respondents. 3. Since a narrow controversy is involved in this writ petition, the same is forthwith taken up for final disposal. 4. On 6th February 2019, a quarrying lease was granted in favour of the petitioner for a period of 20 years under the provisions of the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1994 (for short `the said Rules of 1994’). 5. By the impugned order at Annexure-A dated 17th December 2019 passed by the Senior Geologist, it is stated that the competent Authority within the meaning of the said Rules of 1994 has cancelled the lease. It is mentioned in the impugned order that a request was received from the Deputy Conservator of Forest by letter dated 15th April 2019 to cancel the said lease. It is further observed that the Chief Conservator of Forest by his letter dated 16th April 2019 informed the competent Authority that the area around the leased area is leased to Mysore Paper Mills (MPM). Therefore, it is not permitted to transport the lease products through the area leased to MPM. Therefore, by relying upon sub-Rule (5) of Rule 8 of the said Rules of 1994, the competent Authority purported to cancel the lease. 6. The submission of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the power of the competent Authority to cancel the lease is under sub-Rule (3) of Rule 6 of the said Rules of 1994 in case of breach of terms and conditions of the lease. The condition precedent for determination of lease is issuance of a notice calling upon the lessee to rectify the breaches. Even this condition precedent is not complied with. 7. The learned Additional Government Advocate submitted that the competent Authority is bound by the opinion expressed by the Forest Department, in view of Clause (iii) of sub-Rule (5) of Rule 8 of the said Rules of 1994 under which the competent Authority, before granting a lease, is required to obtain NOC from the Deputy Conservator of Forest. He submitted that the competent Authority is bound by the opinion expressed by the officials of the Forest Department. 8. We have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Advocate. 9. He submitted that the competent Authority is bound by the opinion expressed by the officials of the Forest Department. 8. We have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Advocate. 9. Sub-Rule (3) of Rule 6 of the said Rules of 1994 reads thus: “In case of breach by the lessee or licensee or his transferee or assignees of any of the conditions specified in these rules or in the quarrying lease deed or licence, the Competent Authority shall require by notice in writing the lessee or licencee to remedy the breach within thirty days from the date of notice and if the breach is not remedied within such period the competent Authority may levy a fine not exceeding two thousand rupees in the case of non-specified minor minerals and rupees ten thousand in case of specified minor minerals [and the Competent Authority may without prejudice to any other action that may be taken against such lessee, licensee, transferee or assignee determine the lease or licence after providing an opportunity of being heard.]” (Underline supplied) Hence, the power to determine the lease can be exercised only in case of breach by the lessee of the conditions specified in the said Rules of 1994 or breach of the terms and conditions in quarrying lease. Before the said action is taken, the competent Authority shall inform by notice in writing the lessee or licencee to remedy the breach within thirty days from the date of notice. There is a power to cancel the lease after giving an opportunity of being heard to the lessee. The power to determine lease can be exercised only after a notice as aforesaid is issued. In the present case, no such notice was issued to the petitioner. 10. No objection certificate (NOC) is required to be obtained before granting lease or licence from the Deputy Conservator of Forest. In this case, such a no objection was granted by the Deputy Conservator of Forest on 4th October 2016 (Annexure-D). 11. In the impugned order, there is no allegation of breaches of any Rule out of the said rules of 1994 or conditions of the lease committed by the petitioner. It is not the case of the respondents that he was granted a lease without obtaining NOC of the Deputy Conservator of Forest. 11. In the impugned order, there is no allegation of breaches of any Rule out of the said rules of 1994 or conditions of the lease committed by the petitioner. It is not the case of the respondents that he was granted a lease without obtaining NOC of the Deputy Conservator of Forest. In the circumstances, the impugned order cannot be sustained. Accordingly, we pass the following order: i) The impugned order dated 17th December 2019 is hereby quashed and set aside; ii) However, this order will not preclude the competent Authority from initiating action under sub-Rule (3) of Rule 6 of the said Rules of 1994, in the event, the petitioner has committed any breach of the said Rules of 1994 or the conditions of lease. iii) The petition is allowed with the above terms.