Back
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JODHPUR BENCH)
MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR, J
RAHUL – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN – Respondent
CW / 8385 / 2021
Order :
1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved of the order dated 01.04.2021 (Annex.4) whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner has been dismissed as barred by limitation.
2. 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 therefore, the order passed by the Additional Director, Mines deserves to be quashed and set aside.
3. 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.
4. I have considered the submissions made by the counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record.
5. By order impugned dated 01.04.2021, 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:
6. 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.
7. In that view of the matter, the order dated 01.04.2021 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 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 18.02.2025 in the first instance.
8. With the above directions, the writ petition stands disposed of.
The appellate authority's non-speaking order on limitation grounds necessitates a remand for a reasoned decision on the merits of the appeal.
An appellate authority must issue a reasoned decision addressing all arguments, particularly regarding limitation, to ensure fairness in administrative proceedings.
Substantial justice must prevail over technicalities; delay in filing an appeal can be condoned if sufficient cause is shown.
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 court clarified that appeals under statutory provisions must be based on 'date of communication' rather than mere knowledge, ensuring procedural fairness in adjudicating appeals.
Sufficient cause for delay by senior citizen justifies condonation of limitation and remand for merits.
Plausible reasons for delay can be considered for condonation of delay, and each day's delay is not required to be explained as per legal precedent.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
