Natural justice and reasoned orders required before revoking forest clearance; alternative remedy did not bar writ review.

A revocation of forest clearance was held unsustainable where mining had already commenced pursuant to the approval and the withdrawal was made without notice, hearing or recorded reasons. The article states that once such an approval had created a substantive right, it could not be withdrawn mechanically on the basis of a State communication alone; a speaking order was required. It also notes that violation of natural justice and absence of reasons justified writ jurisdiction, so the availability of an alternative remedy did not bar the petition. The revocation was therefore set aside.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the revocation of forest clearance granted under the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 could be sustained without notice, hearing and recorded reasons; and (ii) whether the existence of an alternative remedy barred the writ petition.

Issue (i): whether the revocation of forest clearance granted under the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 could be sustained without notice, hearing and recorded reasons.

Analysis: The approval granted earlier was treated as having conferred a substantive right because mining operations had commenced pursuant to it. Once such a right had accrued, withdrawal of the approval could not be made mechanically. The impugned revocation order was passed only on the basis of the State Government's communication, contained no independent reasons, and was issued without any show cause notice or opportunity of hearing. The requirement of natural justice and the duty to record reasons were therefore not satisfied.

Conclusion: The revocation order was unsustainable and liable to be quashed in favour of the petitioner.

Issue (ii): whether the existence of an alternative remedy barred the writ petition.

Analysis: The challenge was founded on violation of natural justice and absence of reasons in the impugned order. In such a case, the availability of another remedy did not preclude exercise of writ jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The writ petition was maintainable notwithstanding the alternative remedy.

Final Conclusion: The impugned revocation of forest clearance was set aside and the petitioner succeeded in the writ petition.

Ratio Decidendi: A substantive right created by an approval order cannot be revoked without compliance with natural justice and by a speaking order recording reasons; where such violation exists, the writ court may entertain the petition despite an alternative remedy.

---