The remedy of revision to the Central Government under Section 30 of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 is an alternative efficacious remedy and the High Court should not exercise its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in such cases.

1. - In each of the above numbered two writ petitions the orders of the Deputy Secretary to the Government of Rajasthan, Mining Department passed in exercise of the powers of revision conferred under Rule 64 of the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1977 and now Rule 47 of the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1986 are under challenge.

2. We are of the opinion that under Section 30 of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 a revision lies to the Central Government against the aforesaid order of the Deputy Secretary to the Government of Raj Mines Department made in exercise of his power under either Rule 64 of the Rajasthan Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 1977 or under Rule 47 of the Rajasthan Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 1986. This Court has taken a consistent view that the remedy of revision to the Central Government under Section 30 of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 is an alternative efficacious remedy and has declined to interfere in its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It does appear that in a few cases if the principles of natural justice were violated, this Court has made interference. The first case of this Court is Champlal v. State of Rajasthan 1974 RLW 330 wherein this Court took a view that the petitioner has an alternative remedy by way of revision under Section 30 of the aforesaid Act against the orders of the State Government before the Central Government and because he failed to avail the alternative remedy, he is not entitled to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of the Court. Again, in the case of Rajesh Kumar v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. S.B Civil Writ Petition No. 1928 of 1985, decided on January 7, 1986 similar view was taken by the learned Judge and it was held:

"Revision petition lies to the Central Government under Section 30 of the Mining and Mineral (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 against the order (Annexure 4) dated 16th October, 1985 passed by the State Government on the revision petition of the petitioner. In my opinion the aforesaid remedy of revision is an equally efficacious remedy available to the petitioner in which he can agitate all the grounds which he is seeking to raise in this writ petition. 1 a n unable to accept the contention of Shri Singhi that the revision petition before the Central Government is not of equally efficaicous remedy"

3. Again, in the case Kalyan Chand Agarwal v. The State of Rajasthan and Ors. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1469 of 1986, decided on September 23, 1986 similar view was taken and reliance was placed on the case of Kanhaiya Lal v. State of Rajasthan 1977 WLN 139 . The Court stated:

"The alternative remedy of filing revision petition is available to the petition and the petitioner should avail it firstly and thereafter he can approach this Court for passing necessary orders or directions."

4. Mr. Cbaudhary, learned Counsel for the petitioners has brought to our notice a few other decisions of this Court. In the case of Yasin Bhai v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1334 of 1986, decided on May 1, 1987 it appears that the Court entertained the writ petition, but it does not appear that the view taken by this Court in the earlier aforesaid cases was either dealt with, distinguished or was not approved. It will appear from the perusal of the aforesaid case that the learned Judges did not decide the question as to whether the remedy under Section 30 of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 is an efficacious alternative remedy and whether still a writ petition should be entertained under Article 226 of the Constitution of India unless that remedy is first availed.

5. In another case Chandun Lal Jain and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan and Anr. D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 391 of 1988, decided on September 5, 1988 this Bench did entertain the writ petition, but it was in view of the