ORDER : Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J. 1. In wake of instant surge in COVID-19 cases and spread of its highly infectious Omicron variant, abundant caution is being maintained, while hearing the matters in Court, for the safety of all concerned. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had an original lease of mineral Quartz and Feldspar, to which, he applied for inclusion of granite mineral, which was included. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that without furnishing any reason, any notice or any opportunity of hearing and without complying with the basic parameters of natural justice, an adverse order has been passed on 14.09.2018. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment rendered by this Hon'ble Court in Ramesh Gurjar v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11521/2018) on 02.01.2019. The operative portion of the judgment reads as under: "7. Indisputably, the petitioner was granted the mining lease under the provisions of Mineral Concession Rules, 1960, as at the relevant time, the minerals Quartz and Feldspar were categorised as major mineral and thus, the provisions of Rule 7 of the Rules of 1986, had no application. In any case, it is not in dispute that while granting the mining lease the applications preferred by the applicants earlier were required to be given preference under the Rules of 1960 as well. But the fact remains that the petitioner was granted the mining lease way back in the year 2012 and he is operating the mines till this date. It is not the case of the respondents that the applicant who alleged to have made application earlier than the petitioner has raised any grievance regarding non consideration of his application, if any pending. Moreover, apparently on the basis of audit objection, the State Government invoking the provisions of Rule 75 of Rules of 2017, inasmuch as now the mineral Quartz and Feldspar have been categorised as minor mineral by the Government of India, straightaway declared the mining lease granted in favour of the petitioner as null and void without giving him an opportunity of hearing. 8. It stands firmly well established that the rules of natural justice are assurances of justice and fair play and therefore, any action which has evil and civil consequences, should be taken only after following the principle of natural justice. 8. It stands firmly well established that the rules of natural justice are assurances of justice and fair play and therefore, any action which has evil and civil consequences, should be taken only after following the principle of natural justice. To say the least the observance of principles of natural justice is a rule and exclusion an exception and therefore, unless exceptional circumstances justifying exclusion thereof exist, departure therefrom is not permissible under the law. 9. Adverting to the facts of the present case, admittedly on the strength of the mining lease granted the petitioner is operating the mine for last more than 5 years. Obviously, the right vested in the petitioner to operate the mines for the lease period i.e. 30 years and thus, his vested right to operate the mine could not have been set at naught merely on the basis of audit objections, without putting him to notice against the proposed action, while drawing unilateral conclusion that preferential claim of another applicant has not been considered. The petitioner is well within his right to contest the reasons against the proposed action on all available grounds and thus, the order impugned passed by the State Government in perfunctory manner without giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, being in gross violation of principle of natural justice, is not sustainable in the eyes of law. 10. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. The order impugned dated 12.6.18 passed by the State Government is quashed. The respondents shall be at liberty to take appropriate decision in respect of cancellation of mining lease granted in favour of the petitioner after giving him an opportunity of hearing in accordance with law. No order as to costs." 5. Learned counsel for the respondents opposes the aforesaid submissions made on behalf of the petitioner, but is unable to refute that neither any notice nor any opportunity of hearing whatsoever in conformity with the basic parameters of natural justice was given. 6. In view of the above, the present petition is allowed and while quashing the impugned order dated 14.09.2018, the respondents are directed to give proper opportunity of hearing to the petitioner so as to enable him to take up his issue appropriately, and thereafter, pass the order strictly in accordance with law; the same be done without getting prejudiced by this order, on merits. 7. 7. All pending applications stand disposed of accordingly.