An appeal is time-barred if not filed within three months of the order communication, with six months as an absolute limit, irrespective of claims of ignorance.

ORDER :

Ganesh Ram Meena, J.

The petitioner by way of present writ petition has challenged the order dated 15.10.2018 passed by the Addl. Director (Mines), Environment & Development, Rajasthan, Udaipur, whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner under Rules 63 and 64 of the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2017 (for short 'the Rules of 2017') was dismissed being time barred in view of Rule 63(4) of the Rules of 2017.

2. The facts borne out from the pleadings are that the petitioner Hanuman Ram Choudhary, who is being represented through his legal representative in the present case was holding a mining lease for the period up to 04.02.2001 and because of the reason that he did not submit any application for renewal of the mining lease, the period of lease expired on 04.02.2001. On expiry of the lease period, the Assistant Engineer (Mining), Banswara written a letter to his Subordinate Office on 14.02.2001 to take the possession of the lease area in favour of the State and thereafter the possession of the lease area was taken by the respondent authorities on 28.02.2001. Lease holder - Hanuman Ram Choudhary expired on 06.12.2015 and his legal heir filed an appeal against the letter dated 14.02.2001 under Rules 63 and 65 of the Rules of 2017.

3. The Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal of the petitioner vide order dated 15.10.2018 on the count that the appeal is time barred as the same has been filed after six months of the order under challenge i.e. the order dated 14.02.2001.

4. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the letter dated 14.02.2001 was never served upon them and the same was not within their knowledge. So, when the legal representative of the lease holder Hanuman Ram Choudhary came to know about the letter dated 14.02.2001 on 05.07.2017 and thereafter he obtained the copies of the letter dated 14.02.2001 and the possession report dated 27/28.02.2001. He further submits that he has moved an application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal but the Appellate Authority has observed that the reasons mentioned in the appeal for condonation of delay are not sufficient to condone the delay.

5. Considered the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner and perused the material available on the record.

6. As per the contents of para 6 of the writ petition, the period of mining lease expired on 04.02.2001 and because of non submitting the renewal application, a letter dated 14.02.2001 was issued for taking possession of the lease area and thereafter on 27/28.02.2001 the possession of the lease area was taken by the respondent authorities. Para 6 of the writ petition is quoted as under:-

"6. That the petitioner started mines smoothly and time and time deposited dead rent of the mines and following the Rules applicable on his mines, but vide order dt. 14.02.2001 the respondent no.3 directed to the mining Foreman to take possession of the mining lease of petitioner stating reason that lease period expire on 4.2.2001 and no renewal application has been submitted and on 27.02.2001 the Foreman had taken the possession of the mining lease without any information to the petitioner and submitted a possession report on 28.02.2001 to the respondent no. 3. The copies of order dated 14.02.2001 and possession report dated 28.02.2001 along with report dated 27.02.2001 are submitted herewith and marked as Annexure-3 and 4. It is submitted that no copy of the order dated 14.02.2001 was served to the petitioner which is mandatory before taking any action against the petitioner and no any opportunity of hearing was provide to him and also for the possession of the mining lease only paper work had been completed no actual p