15.9.2017, impugned at Annexure 23, on grounds that it is influenced by the orders of the superior authority. According to learned Senior Counsel, the conclusion drawn is again resting on no evidence and that the order of cancellation proceeds on a vague show cause which does not give any descriptive details on the allegation. While questioning the order on procedural lapse Mr. Giri has invited the attention of this Court to the stipulations underlying Rule 24(3) of the Bihar Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as „the Rules‟) to submit that the Collector, Patna, who is the licensing authority for the settlement in question, even though has been conferred with the power to determine the lease and pass appropriate orders thereon but such exercise is accompanied with an obligation of giving reasonable opportunity to the applicant of being heard. It is argued by Mr. Giri and not contested that no opportunity of hearing has been provided to the petitioner, rather it is simply on the basis of show cause reply filed by the petitioner that the opinion has been formed by the Collector, Patna. According to Mr. Giri, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, where the Statute prescribes the mode and manner of disposal of a matter, the statutory authority acting under the Statute, needs to follow the law and since it casts an obligation on the Collector to provide an opportunity of hearing to the party concerned, such opportunity should have been provided to the petitioner.
