because of illiteracy, the alleged agreement was got signed fraudulently, though in the power of attorney, it was specifcally mentioned that the mining lease cannot be sold/transferred and physical possession will remain with the petitioner only. It was also specified in the reply that the amount of Rs.5,11,000/-received by the petitioner was as an advance towards the goods/ material and not towards the sale consideration. The respondentDepartment, without considering the reply submitted by the petitioner, terminated the license of the petitioner vide order dated 15.12.2016 (Annex.10) and thereafter taken the possession of the mining area on 16.12.2016. Aggrieved by the order dated 15.12.2016 (Annex.9), the petitioner preferred an appeal which was pending before the appellate authority. Therefore, the petitioner filed a writ petition being SBCWP No.15226/2016 before this Court wherein this Court directed the respondents to decide the appeal within a period of two months vide order dated 06.10.2018. But the respondent-Department, before deciding the appeal, passed another order dated 30.08.2018 and the mining done by the petitioner after 13.08.2010 was declared illegal and the Mining Engineer was directed to proceed against the petitioner. The petitioner thereafter served a notice for contempt of the order dated 06.10.2018 and after receipt of the same, the appeal of the petitioner was dismissed by the respondents vide order dated 16.01.2019 (Annex.11). Hence, the writ petition has been filed. (8) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned orders have been passed without considering the facts in toto. It was submitted that as and when the petitioner came to know about the forged agreement and filing of application for
