Natural justice and easement claims required fresh consideration before granting access to the licensed area.

Access to a licensed area was set aside where it had been ordered at the initial stage without giving the appellant an opportunity to file a reply or place its case on record. The Tribunal held that the easement claim based on Section 13(e) of the Indian Easements Act, 1882 had been raised for the first time and required proper examination before any further direction. It also noted that the impugned order could create an erroneous impression of possession beyond the limited permissive use earlier recognised, so the matter required reconsideration on all relevant aspects. The appeal was allowed and the matter remitted for fresh consideration in accordance with law.

---

---

Issues: Whether the impugned order granting access to the licensed area was liable to be set aside for want of opportunity of hearing and for premature examination of easement-based claims.

Analysis: The Appellate Tribunal noted that the impugned order had been passed at the initial stage without affording the appellant an opportunity to file a reply or place its case on record. It further noted that the easement question based on Section 13(e) of the Indian Easements Act, 1882 had been raised for the first time and required proper examination. The Tribunal also observed that the impugned order, in effect, created an erroneous impression of possession beyond the limited permissive use earlier recognised, and that all relevant aspects needed reconsideration before any further order.

Conclusion: The appeal was allowed and the impugned order was set aside, with the matter remitted to the Adjudicating Authority for fresh consideration in accordance with law.

---