Waiver and natural justice in lease cancellation: later notice, admitted breaches, and no prejudice left the revisional order intact.

Waiver of a lease cancellation requires intentional relinquishment of a known right; a later notice issued after cancellation did not revive the terminated lease or invalidate the cancellation. The lessee had notice and an opportunity to explain admitted breaches, so the cancellation procedure satisfied natural justice and the offer of a further personal hearing did not render it unfair. The revisional order was also upheld because reference to matters in the later notice caused no prejudice and there was no demonstrated non-application of mind or reliance on irrelevant material. The challenge to cancellation of the mining lease therefore failed on all grounds.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the second notice issued after cancellation of the lease amounted to waiver of the first notice and invalidated the cancellation; (ii) Whether the order of cancellation violated natural justice; (iii) Whether the revisional order was vitiated by non-application of mind or consideration of irrelevant materials.

Issue (i): Whether the second notice issued after cancellation of the lease amounted to waiver of the first notice and invalidated the cancellation.

Analysis: Waiver requires the intentional abandonment of a known right. The cancellation of the lease by the State Government had already taken effect before the second notice was issued, and the later notice could not revive a terminated lease. The record disclosed no voluntary or intentional relinquishment by the State Government, and the second notice, issued without knowledge of the prior cancellation, did not amount to waiver.

Conclusion: The plea of waiver failed.

Issue (ii): Whether the order of cancellation violated natural justice.

Analysis: The breaches were admitted and the lessee had been given notice and an opportunity to explain. The reply did not deny the defaults but sought condonation. On these facts, the opportunity afforded was sufficient, and the requirements of natural justice were satisfied. The offer of a personal hearing in the later notice did not make the earlier procedure unfair.

Conclusion: There was no breach of natural justice.

Issue (iii): Whether the revisional order was vitiated by non-application of mind or consideration of irrelevant materials.

Analysis: The reference to matters mentioned in the second notice was made because the appellant himself relied upon that notice in his additional submissions. No prejudice was shown, and the revisional authority exercised its discretion on admitted breaches and a plea for indulgence. In the absence of any special vitiating feature, the order could not be disturbed.

Conclusion: The revisional order was not vitiated on this ground.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the cancellation of the mining lease failed on all grounds, and the orders of the authorities below were left undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: Waiver requires clear intentional relinquishment of a known right, and where an affected party has been given a fair opportunity to answer admitted breaches, the decision cannot be set aside for want of natural justice or alleged non-application of mind absent demonstrated prejudice.

---