[2025:RJ-JP:36363]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.12080/2025 M/s Jai Sanwariya Stone Crusher, Dhorela, District Bundi Through Its Proprietor Sanwariya Saini, Son Of Shri Suraj Saini, Aged About 41 Years, Resident Of Pipli Chouraha, Main Road Nanta, Tehsil Ladpura, District Kota (Rajasthan).

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Department Of Mines And Geology, Secretarait, Jaipur.

2. Joint Secretary, Govt Of Rajasthan, Department Of Mines, Secretariat, Jaipur.

3. Additional Director, Mines (E And M), Directorate Of Mines And Geology, Rajasthan, Udaipur.

4. Mining Engineer, Department Of Mines And Geology, Bundi-II.

----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ashwani Kumar Chobisa For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rahul Lodha, Addl. GC JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND

Order

09/09/2025

1. By way of filing this writ petition, a challenge has been led to the impugned order dated 18.11.2020 passed by the Additional Director (Mines) whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the impugned order dated 07.02.2020 has been rejected not on merits but on the ground of delay.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Mining Engineer passed the impugned order dated 07.02.2020, which was assailed by the petitioner by way of filing an appeal under Rules 63 & 65 of the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2017 (for short “the Rules of 2017”) on 03.09.2020 along-with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for condoning the delay in filing the appeal. Learned counsel submits that under the Rules of 2017, the period of limitation of filing an appeal is three months and the appellate authority has further power to condone three months additional delay. Learned counsel submits that a specific ground was taken by the petitioner in application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 that the order dated 07.02.2020 was not communicated to the petitioner and that was the precise reason for the delay in filing an appeal before the appellate authority. Learned counsel submits that these facts were not considered or appreciated by the appellate authority and the appeal has been rejected on a technical ground of delay without deciding the same on its merits. Learned counsel submits that, under these circumstances, the order impugned passed by the appellate authority is not sustainable in the eyes of law and is liable to be quashed and set-aside.

3. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgments passed by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court at Principal Seat at Jodhpur in the case of Mohan Ram Vs. The State of Rajasthan & Ors. while deciding S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.9092/2021 and Madan Lal Vs. The State of Rajasthan while deciding S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.14920/2017

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents opposed the arguments raised by learned counsel for the petitioner, but he is not in a position to controvert the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner.

5. Heard and considered the submissions made at the Bar and perused the material available on the record.

6. Perusal of the record indicates that against the order dated 07.02.2020 passed by the Mining Engineer, an appeal was preferred by the petitioner under Rules 63 & 65 of the Rules of 2017 along-with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 seeking condonation of delay on the ground that aforesaid order was not communicated to the petitioner.

7. It is worthy to note here that the date of impugned order passed by the Mining Engineer is 07.02.2020 while the appeal was preferred on 03.11.2020. The Appellate Authority without deciding the application submitted by the petitioner under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 and without considering the reasons of delay, the appeal has been rejected on the ground of delay. The co- ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Mohan Ram (supra) has dealt with