JUDGMENT : A. Muhamed Mustaque, J. This appeal was filed by respondents 6 to 8 and 10 in the writ petition, aggrieved by the judgment of the learned single Judge revoking the mining lease granted in favour of them. The writ petitioner is a local resident. He approached this Court with the writ petition alleging that there were so many violations of conditions in the mining lease and based on the violation, the mining lease granted in favour of the appellants, is bound to be revoked. The learned single Judge heard the matter in detail and after adverting to the violations and compounding the offence by the appellants, came to the definite conclusion that Ext.P12 mining lease is liable to be revoked. This decision is called in question. It is to be noted that this is not a case where any fundamental rights of the petitioner are directly involved in a decision by this Court in the writ jurisdiction. The decision making authority to cancel or revoke the licence is the Director of the Directorate of Mining and Geology, the second respondent in the writ petition. He has not rendered a decision after adverting to the complaint of the writ petitioner. It is not proper for this Court to exercise the power of the primary authority who has to take a decision on the matters of this nature. The second review available to the court to examine the decision cannot be used as akin to primary authority and take a decision thereon. The Executive is the primary authority to take a decision of any complaint related to the violation of the mining lease. The prayers in the writ petition are as follows : i. To declare that the 8th respondent is not entitled to carry out the quarrying operation in the strength of Exhibit P12 Mining lease. ii. To issue a writ of certiorari quashing Exhibit P12 mining lease. 2. It is to be noted that this is not a public interest litigation where the writ petitioner who appeared in person espoused the larger cause of the State. Anyway, on that point the primary authority having not bestowed the attention in a decision making process, it was not proper for this Court to directly involve and revoke the lease. 2. It is to be noted that this is not a public interest litigation where the writ petitioner who appeared in person espoused the larger cause of the State. Anyway, on that point the primary authority having not bestowed the attention in a decision making process, it was not proper for this Court to directly involve and revoke the lease. We are of the view that the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge has to be set aside to pave way for consideration by the competent authority, untrammelled by the findings and the observations in the impugned judgment by the second respondent. The second respondent, after hearing both sides, will have to take a fresh decision in accordance with law. Such decision shall be taken within a period of two months. We also direct the parties to appear before the second respondent on 06.02.2023. Accordingly, the impugned judgment is set aside. We make it clear that a decision shall be taken by the second respondent untrammelled by any observations and findings in the impugned judgment. It is submitted that the mining lease would expire on 16.02.2023. It is open for the second respondent to consider the request for renewal of the lease in accordance with law. The appeal stands disposed of as above. No costs.