Court sets aside premature lease termination, orders fair hearing for petitioner, stresses natural justice principles.

The court directed respondent No. 2 to issue a fresh, reasoned order after providing the petitioner with a hearing opportunity. The previous order terminating the lease deed prematurely was set aside, and the petitioner's objections were to be considered. The court emphasized the importance of following principles of natural justice and considering responses before making decisions affecting rights. The writ petition was disposed of with these directions, pending the outcome of the new decision.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Premature Termination of Lease Deed
2. Non-observance of Principles of Natural Justice
3. Requirement of Issuance of Show-Cause Notice
4. Consideration of Petitioner's Reply

Detailed Analysis:

1. Premature Termination of Lease Deed:
The petitioner challenged the decision communicated through memo No. 734 dated 27.4.2016, which prematurely terminated the lease deed for a stone quarry. The lease, originally granted for ten years from 21.2.2010 to 20.2.2020, was terminated on the grounds that the leased area fell within a protected forest as per a 1953 notification. The petitioner argued that prior statutory clearances, including those from the Forest Department, had been obtained, indicating the land was not classified as forest land.

2. Non-observance of Principles of Natural Justice:
The petitioner contended that the principles of natural justice were not observed. Specifically, the order dated 26.4.2016, which canceled the lease, was neither communicated to the petitioner nor considered the petitioner's reply to the notice issued on 12.1.2016. The court emphasized that any decision adversely affecting a person's rights must follow principles of natural justice, including proper consideration of objections and replies.

3. Requirement of Issuance of Show-Cause Notice:
The petitioner received a notice on 12.1.2016 informing them that the leased land fell under a notified forest. The petitioner appeared for a hearing, but no proceedings took place. Another notice on 5.3.2016 required the petitioner to obtain a 'No Objection Certificate' from the Forest Department within 20 days. The court highlighted that the petitioner’s reply to these notices was not considered before the lease was canceled, violating the principles of natural justice.

4. Consideration of Petitioner's Reply:
The court noted that the petitioner's detailed objection, challenging the applicability of the 1953 notification and other factual issues, was not considered by the authorities. The court cited precedents emphasizing the necessity of reasoned decisions and the requirement to consider objections before making decisions that adversely affect rights. The court referenced judgments such as Kranti Associates Private Limited vs. Masood Ahmed Khan and Dharampal Satyapal Limited vs. Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, which underscore the importance of recording reasons and adhering to principles of natural justice in administrative and quasi-judicial decisions.

Conclusion:
The court directed the respondent No. 2 to pass a fresh, reasoned order after affording the petitioner an opportunity for a hearing. The effect of the previous order dated 26.4.2016 and the impugned letter dated 27.4.2016 would be subject to the outcome of this new decision. The writ petition was disposed of with these directions.

---