ORDER : Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondents. 2. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was granted a quarrying lease under the provisions of the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1994 (for short "the said Rules"). The quarrying lease was granted on 20th April 2016 for a period of five years. In the statement of objections filed by the respondents, it is accepted that now the validity of the lease has been extended for a period of twenty years from 20th April 2016. The challenge in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is to the communication/letter dated 27th November 2019 (Annexure-J) issued by the Deputy Director of the Department of Mines and Geology. It is stated in the said letter that an area of 113 acres of land has been declared as a reserved forest under Section 4 of the Karnataka Forest Act, 1963 (for short "the said Act"). It is stated that 11 acres of land in Sy.No.1/D of Uchanagidurga Village, Arasikere Hobli, Harapanahalli Taluk, Davanagere District is of the Revenue Department. We may note here that the lease has been granted in respect of an area of one acre out of the aforesaid land in Sy.No.1/D1. It is stated that in the joint survey, it was revealed that illegal mining is in progress on the land declared as a forest under Section 4 of the said Act. It is further stated that the Zonal Forest Officer has requested to immediately cancel the permission granted for stone quarrying. Therefore, the petitioner was directed to stop the mining activity in the land subject matter of lease. 3. In response to the challenge in this petition, the respondents have filed statement of objections. It is stated that the Forest Department had granted no objection on 31st August 2015 for grant of lease of the subject land to the petitioner. Similarly, the Revenue Department had issued a No Objection Certificate on 27th August 2014. It is further alleged that the demand of a sum of Rs.1,20,10,800/-towards mineral dispatch permit made to the petitioner has not been complied with. Secondly, it is alleged that the excavation of the minerals exceeds the quantity permitted under the Environmental Clearance granted to the petitioner. Similarly, the Revenue Department had issued a No Objection Certificate on 27th August 2014. It is further alleged that the demand of a sum of Rs.1,20,10,800/-towards mineral dispatch permit made to the petitioner has not been complied with. Secondly, it is alleged that the excavation of the minerals exceeds the quantity permitted under the Environmental Clearance granted to the petitioner. Thirdly, it is stated that the land granted to the petitioner was overlapping with that of the land of the Forest Department and once again, a joint survey ought to have been undertaken to finalise the issue of overlapping. It is further contended that the impugned letter is not a final notice and therefore, the petition is premature. It is further submitted that the area covered by the lease is a part of the reserved forest area. 4. As far as the breaches alleged regarding nonpayment of amount towards mineral dispatch permit and carrying on excavation in excess of what is permitted are concerned, no such allegations have been incorporated in the impugned letter. There is no specific allegation in the impugned letter that the area subject matter of lease granted to the petitioner squarely falls within the area covered by a declaration issued under Section 4 of the said Act. The allegation in the impugned letter is that the petitioner is carrying on the quarrying operations on a forest land. 5. Under the said Rules and in particular, under sub-rule (3) of Rule 6, there is a power vesting in the Competent Authority to cancel a lease on the ground of breach of the terms and conditions of the lease or on the ground of violation of the provisions of the said Rules. In the impugned letter, there are no such allegations. Even the proviso to Rule 45 which provides for power to cancel has not been invoked. 6. Apart from the fact that there is no statutory power vesting in the Deputy Director of suspending the quarrying operations under a subsisting lease, before passing such a drastic order, the principles of natural justice have not been complied with. The impugned letter contains an order directing stopping of the mining activity. The direction to stop mining activity is not limited by time. The impugned letter contains an order directing stopping of the mining activity. The direction to stop mining activity is not limited by time. Therefore, even assuming that there was a power vesting in the Deputy Director to issue such an order, the same cannot be sustained on account of breach of the principles of natural justice. 7. Therefore, the impugned communication/letter will have to be set aside. While we do so, we make it clear that we have made no adjudication on the question whether the land subject matter of lease or any part thereof is a part of reserved forest declared under Section 4 of the said Act. We have also made no adjudication on the issue of breaches alleged against the petitioner. 8. Accordingly, we pass the following order: (i) The impugned letter dated 27th November 2019 at Annexure-J is hereby set aside; (ii) So long as the quarrying lease granted to the petitioner is valid and subsisting, he has a right to carry on the quarrying operations subject to compliance of the terms and conditions of the lease and the provisions of the said Rules; (iii) However, this order will not prevent the respondents from initiating appropriate action under the provisions of law for cancellation of the lease granted to the petitioner; (iv) The writ petition is disposed of with the above directions.