HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JODHPUR BENCH)
MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR, J
SWAROOP RAM BISHNOI – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN – Respondent
CW / 2583 / 2025
(A) Administrative Law - Writ Jurisdiction - The appellate authority's order dated 30.09.2020 dismissing the petitioner's appeal as barred by limitation was quashed for being non-speaking and not addressing the petitioner's arguments regarding the appeal's timeliness. The matter was remanded for reconsideration of the appeal on merits. (Paras 1, 2)
(B) Limitation - The court emphasized the necessity for the appellate authority to provide a reasoned decision on the plea of limitation raised by the petitioner, reinforcing the principle that decisions must be substantiated. (Paras 1, 2)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner challenged the appellate authority's dismissal of their appeal as barred by limitation, arguing that it failed to address the merits of their claims.
Findings of Court:
The court found the appellate authority's order to be non-speaking and inadequate in addressing the petitioner's arguments, leading to the decision to remand the matter.
Issues: The court addressed whether the appellate authority's dismissal was justified and whether the appeal was indeed within limitation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that an appellate authority must provide a reasoned decision addressing all pertinent arguments, particularly regarding limitation.
Result: The order dated 30.09.2020 was quashed and the matter remanded for reconsideration.
Order :
1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the controversy involved in the preset writ petition is squarely covered by a judgment rendered by this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.136/2022 (Khivsingh vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.), decided on 11.12.2024 in the following terms :-
“This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved of the order dated 30.09.2020 (Annex.2) whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner has been dismissed as barred by limitation.
Learned counsel for the petitioner made submissions that the appeal filed by the petitioner has been rejected by the Additional Director, Mines without dealing with the aspects raised by the petitioner regarding the appeal being within limitation and therefore, the order passed by the Additional Director, Mines deserves to be quashed and set aside.
Learned counsel for the respondents made submissions that the plea sought to be raised by the petitioner stands answered from the annexure(s) filed with the reply and, therefore, the writ petition deserves dismissal.
I have considered the submissions made by the counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record.
By order impugned dated 30.09.2020, the appellate authority though noticed the fact that limitation for filing the appeal is three months from the date of receipt of the impugned order, however, after noticing the said aspect without indicating and/or dealing with the facts pertaining to the plea raised by the petitioner regarding the appeal being within limitation and the respondents’ plea indicating the petitioner was well aware of passing of the order impugned, the following has been observed:
pw¡fd mDr vihy lgk;d [kfu vfHk;ark] ckyslj ds vkns’k fnukad 14-05-2013 bl U;k;ky; esa fnukad 04-11-2019 dks 6 ekg ls vf/kd le; O;rhr gksus ds i'pkr izLrqr dh gS] tks xzkº; ugha gksus ls fu;e 63 ¼4½ ds varxZr vLohd`r dh tkrh gSA
'The order passed by the appellate authority, for rejecting the appeal as barred by limitation, is absolutely non-speaking and it does not even indicate as to in what manner the plea raised by the petitioner cannot be accepted.
In that view of the matter, the order dated 30.09.2020 passed by the appellate authority cannot be sustained, the same is therefore, quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded back to the appellate authority to hear and decide the plea raised by the petitioner pertaining to the appeal being within limitation and objection of the respondents qua the same plea and in case the appeal is found within limitation, to decide the same on merits. The parties shall appear before the appellate authority on 16.01.2025 in the first instance.
With the above directions, the writ petition stands disposed of”.
2. In view of the above submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner, the present writ petition is disposed of in terms of judgment rendered in case of Khivsingh(supra).
An appellate authority must issue a reasoned decision addressing all arguments, particularly regarding limitation, to ensure fairness in administrative proceedings.
The appellate authority's non-speaking order on limitation grounds necessitates a remand for a reasoned decision on the merits of the appeal.
Substantial justice must prevail over technicalities; delay in filing an appeal can be condoned if sufficient cause is shown.
The principle of res judicata applies at different stages of litigation, and failure to challenge prior decisions precludes subsequent applications on the same issues.
The trial court must reevaluate the limitation of a suit based on evidence and compliance with prior orders, rather than rely solely on earlier decisions.
The principle of res judicata and the provisions of Order XIV Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 were central to the court's decision.
A disputed question cannot be decided as a preliminary issue.
The limitation for appeals under the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules is calculated from the date of communication of the order, not the date of the order itself.
The limitation for execution proceedings starts from the date of disposal of the appeal, regardless of whether there was a stay during the appeal.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.