JUDGMENT : M.S. Ramachandra Rao, C.J. 1. In this writ petition the petitioner has challenged the order dt. 16.5.2023 passed by the Mines Commissioner, Ranchi in Revision Case No. 57 of 2022 under Rule 63 of Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2004 communicated through Memo No. 1546/MC dt. 18.7.2023 issued by the Under Secretary, Department of Mines and Geology, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi. 2. The said Revision had been filed by the petitioner before the Mines Commissioner against the Communication No. 814/M dt. 8.9.2022 of the Deputy Commissioner, Sahebganj( Respondent No. 2), whereby the registered mining lease dt. 2.2.2018/20.2.2018 of the petitioner valid for 10 years, has been prematurely terminated. 3. Petitioner has also sought for quashing of the Communication No. 814/M dt. 8.9.2022 of the Respondent No. 2 and has further sought a Mandamus directing the Respondent No. 2 to issue a statutory thirty days’ notice afresh under lease deed part IX/ 3 of Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2004 and provide an opportunity of hearing under Rule 27(2) of the Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2004 before passing fresh reasoned and speaking order. 4. A direction was also sought by the petitioner for restraining the respondents from dispossessing the petitioner from the mining lease hold area and also for restraining the respondents from creating any third part right during the pendency of the writ petition. 5. The admitted case is that the Petitioner was granted a lease deed on 2.2.2018 in relation to Stone minor mineral in the District of Sahebganj for a period of 10 years w.e.f. 10.10.2017 duly executed by 2 nd respondent and which was registered on 20.2.2018. 6. Petitioner obtained all statutory clearances required to operate the mine such as an approved mining plan, environment clearance, consent to operate from the competent authorities. 7. Mining plan of the petitioner was approved by the District Mining Officer, Sahebganj on 7.11.2015 and on 6.11.2020. Petitioner also obtained the Environment Clearance on 27.09.2016 from the District Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority, Sahebganj and consent to operate was also granted by the Jharkhand State Pollution Control Board on 17.5.2022. 8. The Deputy Chief Controller of Explosive, Ministry of Commerce and Industry on 10.1.2018 renewed the license of the petitioner to possess and use Ammonium Nitrate. Permission dt. 14.1.2019 for use of explosives was also issued by the Petroleum and Explosive Safety Organization. 9. 8. The Deputy Chief Controller of Explosive, Ministry of Commerce and Industry on 10.1.2018 renewed the license of the petitioner to possess and use Ammonium Nitrate. Permission dt. 14.1.2019 for use of explosives was also issued by the Petroleum and Explosive Safety Organization. 9. According to the petitioner, it started lawfully conducting operations with full compliance of all statutory clearances and conditions contained therein to the satisfaction of all statutory authorities. 10. However, on 1.9.2022 the petitioner was issued a notice dt. 26.8.2022 by the 2 nd respondents giving the petitioner seven days’ time for removing certain named irregularities in terms of Rule 22 and 27 of Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concessions Rules, 2004. 11. Petitioner wrote a letter on 3.9.2022 requesting the 2 nd respondent to grant 30 days’ time for compliance as mandated by Rule 22 and 27 of the said Rules. 12. But the 2 nd respondent on 8.9.2022 passed an order prematurely terminating the mining lease of the petitioner for non-compliance of Rule 22 and 27 of the Rules and an order dated 23.8.2022 passed by the National Green Tribunal without issuing 30 days’ notice, which is the mandatory statutory requirement under Rule 27(2) of Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2004 read with lease deed part IX/3. 13. Challenging the same, the petitioner preferred Revision Application No. 57 of 2022 before the Mines Commissioner, Jharkhand under Rule 62 of the Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2004 on 12.10.2022. 14. According to the petitioner, the Mines Commissioner did not list this Revision Application for a long time and so the petitioner filed W.P. (C) No. 131 of 2023 which was disposed of on 24.1.2023 directing the Mines Commissioner to dispose of the Revision Application within six weeks after providing an opportunity for hearing. 15. The Mining Commissioner, however, dismissed the Revision Application on 16.5.2023. The Mines Commissioner, held as under: “I have perused the record and provisions of JMMC Rule in detail, It is evident from the record that a legal notice was served upon petitioner vide letter memo no 686/M dated 05.08.2022 issued by District mining officer, Sahebganj and vide letter no 755/M, dated 26.08.2022 issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Sahebganj regarding irregularity found during lease inspection on 28.07 2022. Thereafter the petitioner submitted the reply of the same on 03.09.2022. Thereafter the petitioner submitted the reply of the same on 03.09.2022. The Deputy commissioner, Sahebganj found the reply submitted by the petitioner unsatisfactory and then prematurely terminated the lease of the petitioner. Hence it is established that principle of natural justice was followed & opportunity of being heard was given to the petitioner. From perusal of reply to the show cause by the petitioner to Deputy Commissioner, Sahebganj, It appears that the petitioner failed to answer the irregularities as pointed out in the show cause issued to the petitioner. The Deputy Commissioner, Sahebaganj passed the order of premature termination after complying legal procedure as per rules and Hence, I do not find any valid reason to intervene with the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Sahebganj In the light of the above facts and circumstances this revision case is hereby disallowed.” (emphasis supplied) 16. Counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner had given a reply (Annexure-5) to the show cause notice dt. 26.8.2022 giving certain reasons, but in the impugned order dt. 8.9.2022, none of the reasons mentioned in the explanation of the petitioner were adverted to or considered by the 2 nd respondent. 17. After perusing the explanation given by the petitioner and the order dt. 8.9.2022 passed by the 2 nd respondent, we find force in this contention of the counsel for the petitioner. 18. In our considered opinion, since the petitioner had given explanation for the allegations levelled in the show cause notice, it is the duty of the 2 nd respondent to consider the same; and non-consideration thereof renders his order one passed without application of mind. Such conduct is not expected of a quasi- judicial authority. 19. When the petitioner filed a Revision before Mines Commissioner, Ranchi, he ought to have allowed the Revision on this said ground and remitted the matter to the 2 nd respondent. 20. But instead, he dismissed the Revision. He also does not say in what manner the irregularities pointed out in the show-cause notice were not properly answered by the petitioner. So even his order is vitiated by non-application of mind. 21. 20. But instead, he dismissed the Revision. He also does not say in what manner the irregularities pointed out in the show-cause notice were not properly answered by the petitioner. So even his order is vitiated by non-application of mind. 21. It appears that the 2 nd respondent is in the habit of passing such orders because a coordinate Division Bench of this Court in W.P. (C) No. 22 of 2024 in the case of another holder of a registered mining lease, also categorically held that there is non-application of mind on the part of 2 nd respondent as he did not consider the explanation of the lessee in that case to a show cause notice; and that the Mines Commissioner ought not to have upheld the said order without explaining how the irregularities pointed out in the show-cause notice were not properly answered by the petitioner. The Division Bench also held that the Mines Commissioner’s order in that case also did not indicate any application of mind. 22. As held by the Supreme Court in M.P. Power Management Company Limited, Jabalpur Vs. Sky Power Southeast Solar India Private Limited and Others , [ (2023) 2 SCC 703 ] , non-application of mind by statutory authority making an order is evidence of arbitrariness. 23. For all the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is allowed; the Memo No. 814/M dt. 8.9.2022 passed by the 2 nd respondent and also the order dt. 16.5.2023 passed by the Mines Commissioner, Ranchi in Revision Case No. 57 of 2022 are both set-aside; the matter is remitted to the 2nd respondent to consider the explanation offered by the petitioner and then pass a reasoned order with reference to the said explanation, in accordance with law and communicate it to the petitioner. The 2 nd respondent shall also pay cost of Rs. 50,000/- to the petitioner within four weeks from today.