Gordhanpura, Kota Rajasthan vs State of Rajasthan through Secretary Department of

Judgment

1. State of Rajasthan through Secretary Department of Mines, Govt. of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur

2. Deputy Secretary Department of Mines, Govt. of Rajasthan, Jaipur

3. Additional Director (Mines) Mines & Geology, Jaipur Region, Jaipur

4. Mining Engineer-II Mines & Geology Department, Bundi ----Respondents For Petitioner(s)

: Mr.Pradeep Mathur For Respondent(s) : Mr.Bharat Vyas, AAG with Mr.Jaivardhan Joshi JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 19/08/2025

1. By way of filing this writ petition, a challenge has been led to the impugned order dated 13.01.2003 by which the petitioner’s application seeking extension of mining lease has been rejected, against which first and second appeal were preferred, but the same were also rejected by the respondents vide impugned order dated 10.02.2009 and 18.09.2009 respectively.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a mining lease was allotted to the petitioner vide order dated 02.12.1992 for a period of ten years. Counsel submits that before passing of the impugned cancellation order, the petitioner submitted an [2025:RJ-JP:32495] (2 of 4) [CW-4183/2010] application seeking renewal of the mining lease and the requisite charges were also deposited, but in spite of above, the application submitted by the petitioner was rejected vide impugned order dated 13.01.2003.

3. Counsel submits that the petitioner became ill for a considerable time and after recovery, the appeal was preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 13.01.2003 before the Additional Collector Mines, however, the same was not decided on its merits, but the same was rejected on a technical ground of limitation by treating the appeal as barred by limitation vide impugned order dated 10.02.2009.

4. Counsel submits that a medical certificate was submitted along-with application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act explaining the reasons of delay, but the same were not considered and the order impugned has been passed not only by the First Appellate Court, but also by the Second Appellate Court, hence, interference of this Court is warranted.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents opposes the arguments raised by counsel for the petitioner and submits that prior to expiry of the period of limitation, an advance notice was issued and served, but in spite of receipt of the same, the needful exercise was not done at the instance of the petitioner, hence, the respondents have not committed any error in passing the impugned dated 13.01.2003. Counsel submits that the petitioner was sleeping over his right for a considerable time and he did not prefer any appeal and thereafter, a time barred appeal was preferred in the year 2008, the same was rightly rejected by the First Appellate Authority by treating the same as time barred. [2025:RJ-JP:32495] (3 of 4) [CW-4183/2010] Counsel submits that unless and until a plausible explanation of delay is given, the appeal cannot be heard on its merits and is liable to be decided on the ground of limitation.

6. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance upon the judgment passed by this Court in the case of Ramkishan Prajapat & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. while deciding S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.14777/2018. Counsel submits that the aforesaid judgment passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court at Principal Seat, Jodhpur has been upheld by the Division Bench of this Court in D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No.202/2019 submitted by the same petitioner (Ramkishan Prajapat & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.) Counsel submits that in view of the submission made hereinabove, interference of this Court is not warranted and the writ petition is liable to be rejected.

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

8. This fact is not in dispute that a mining lease was executed in favour of the petitioner for a period of ten years and the period of the same became effective from 02.12.1992 and expired on

02.12.2002. This fact is not dispute that before expiry of the aforesaid period, no application was submitted by the petitioner for renewal of the aforesaid mining lease. This fact is not in dispute that prior to passing the cancellation order, i.e.,

13.01.2003, an application was submitted by the petitioner on

08.01.2003, but in any case, application was not submitted prior to expiry of the period of limitation.

9. If at all the petitioner was aggrieved by the impugned order dated 13.01.2003, he could have assailed the same, by way of [2025:RJ-JP:32495] (4 of 4) [CW-4183/2010] filing an appeal before the First Appellate Authority well within time, but in the instant case, he remained silent for a considerable time, w.e.f. 13.01.2003 till 09.01.2008 though an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act has been submitted by the petitioner indicating therein that the petitioner was suffering from severe illness, w.e.f. 09.01.2003 till 24.08.2008.

10. The aforesaid explanation furnished by the petitioner was not relied upon by the First Appellate Court by holding that a medical certificate of an Ayurved Doctor was enclosed with the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, wherein the petitioner was shown as a patient suffering from mental disease and the aforesaid certificate was neither bearing any date nor any serial number as well as the same was not issued by the Government Hospital.

11. Considering the above, the reasons of delay in filing appeal was not found to be justified by the First Appellate Court. The same fact has been reiterated by the Second Appellate Court while rejecting the second appeal preferred by the petitioners.

12. This Court finds no error in the orders impugned passed by the First and Second Appellate Authority as no plausible explanation about the inordinate delay has been given by the petitioner in filing a time barred appeal. This Court finds no merit and substance in this writ petition and accordingly, the same is hereby rejected.

13. All pending application(s), if any, also stand dismissed. Aayush Sharma /53 (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J