Back
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU TBA Infrastructure Private Ltd.
Through: Mr. M. K. Bhardwaj, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Gagan Kohli, Advocate Vs.
UT of J&K and others Through: Mr. Rajesh Kumar Thappa, AAG CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE
ORDER :
1. Through the medium of present petition, the petitioner has challenged order dated 23.08.2023 passed by respondent No. 1, whereby appeal filed by the petitioner against order dated 09.04.2021 passed by the Director, Geology & Mining Department J&K, Jammu as also against order dated 07.11.2020 issued by District Mineral Officer, Jammu, has been dismissed on the ground of limitation.
2. It appears that respondent No. 3, District Mineral Officer, Jammu seized Stone Crusher, Hot and Wet Mix Plant, Concrete Batching Plant, Fabricated Unit along with Minor Minerals (12000 Mt. Crusher Bajri, 700 MT Bed Material, 7000 MT Nallah Boulder and 350 MT C/Dust)vide seizure memo No. 1817-18 dated 07.11.2020 in terms of Section 21(4) of the Mines and Minerals (Development & Regulation) Act, 1957 and the rules made thereunder.
3. The aforesaid order of respondent No. 3 was challenged by the petitioner by way of an appeal in terms of Rules 85 of the Jammu and Kashmir Minor Mineral Concession, Storage, Transportation of Minerals and Prevention of Illegal Mining Rules, 2016 (hereinafter to be referred as “the Rules of 2016”) before Director Geology and Mining Department, Jammu, respondent No. 2. During pendency of the appeal, the petitioner sought reassessment of the seized material and accordingly, a committee was constituted by the Appellate Authority on 30.01.2021 with a direction to visit the site and carryout spot inspection. It also appears that vide report dated 17.02.2021, the committee reported that the seized material does not seem to be freshly crushed or extracted. The Appellate Authority, respondent No. 2 vide impugned order dated 09.04.2021 declined to rely upon the report of the committee and dismissed the appeal of the petitioner.
4. The aforesaid order passed by the Appellate Authority was challenged by the petitioner by way of writ petition before this Court, which was registered as WP(C) No. 2707/2021. However, the said writ petition came to be dismissed by this Court in terms of order dated 19.05.2022 by holding that the said order is appealable in terms of Rule 85(2) of the Rules of 2016.
5. After dismissal of the writ petition, it appears that the petitioner filed appeal before respondent No. 1 on 22.12.2022. By virtue of the impugned order dated 23.08.2023, the appeal filed by the petitioner has been dismissed by the Appellate Authority, respondent No. 1 on the ground of limitation without touching merits of the case.
6. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused record of the case.
7. The question that is required to be determined in this case is as to whether respondent No. 1, Appellate Authority was right in dismissing the appeal of the petitioner on the ground of limitation while discarding the prayer of the petitioner for condoning the delay.
8. If we have a look at the record, alongwith the appeal, the petitioner had also filed an application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. In the said application, it was pleaded by the petitioner that delay in filing the appeal was neither deliberate nor intentional but it was due to the reason that the petitioner had inadvertently chosen the forum of the High Court prior to filing of the appeal.
9. Sub Section (2) of Section 29 of the limitation Act, 1963 inter alia provides that the provisions of Sections 4 to 24 of the Limitation Act shall apply only insofar as and, to the extent to which they are not expressly excluded by special law. Thus, the provision relating to condonation of delay in fling the appeal like Section 5 of the Act and provision relating to exclusion of time of proceeding bona fide in a Court without jurisdiction like Section 14 of the Act, would become applicable to the present case, if there is no provision in the Rules, that is contrary to the aforesaid two provisions. The Rules of 2016 do not contain anything contrary to the provisions contained in Section 5 or Section 14 of the limitation Act so far as filing of appeal in terms Secti
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.
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.
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.
The court emphasized that excessive delays in filing appeals cannot be condoned without valid reasons and that the law of limitation applies equally to government entities.
No meritorious claim should be defeated on mere cause of delay especially in situation where delay was sufficiently explained.
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
