Lamba Khoh Tehsil Taleda District Bundi. vs State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary, Department Of

Judgment

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary, Department Of Mines And Geology, Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur.

2. Additional Director (Mines), Department Of Mines And Geology, Kota Zone, Kota (Raj.)

3. Superintending Mining Engineer, Kota Circle, Kota, Department Of Mines And Geology, Kota.

4. Mining Engineer, Mines And Geology Department, Division-Ii Bundi (Raj.) ----Respondents For Petitioner(s)

: Mr.Zaid Khan For Respondent(s) : Mr.Rahul Lodha, Addl.GC. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 27/08/2025

1. The instant writ petition has been preferred against the impugned order dated 05.05.2025 passed by the respondent No.2-Appellate Authority, by which an appeal submitted by the petitioner against the impugned order dated 03.07.2023 passed by respondent No.3 has been rejected not on merits, but on the ground of delay in filing the same.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned cancellation order dated 03.07.2023 was neither served nor communicated to the petitioner. The moment, the petitioner came [2025:RJ-JP:34054] (2 of 6) [CW-8972/2025] to know about the same, an appeal under Section 63 of the Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2017 (for short, “the Rules of 2017”) was submitted along-with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (for short, “the Limitation Act”) mentioning the reasons for filing the appeal with delay.

3. Counsel submits that the reasons assigned in the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act were not considered and the appeal has been dismissed in a cursory manner. Counsel submits that the Appellate Court was duty bound to consider the reasons mentioned in the Section 5 Application in the light of the judgment passed by this Court in the case of Mohan Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. while deciding S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.9092/2021 on 15.11.2021. Counsel submits that under these circumstances, interference of this Court is warranted.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-State opposes the arguments, 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 record.

6. Perusal of the record indicates that the petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 03.07.2023 passed by the respondent No.3 by which the mining lease of the petitioner has been cancelled. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, an appeal was preferred by the petitioner along-with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, wherein the reasoning submitted by the petitioner was that the order was never communicated to the [2025:RJ-JP:34054] (3 of 6) [CW-8972/2025] petitioner and that was the precise reason for filing the delayed appeal.

7. Instead of considering the reasons assigned in the application submitted by the petitioner under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, the appeal has been rejected not on merits, but on a technical ground of being barred by limitation in a cursory manner without application of mind. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court at Principal Seat, Jodhpur in the case of Mohan Ram (supra) has dealt with an identical situation and has held in Para Nos.9 to 18 are as follows:- “9. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the material on record, this Court finds that the impugned order passed by the Appellate Authority is unreasoned besides being contrary to statutory provision of Rule 63 (4) of the Rules of 2017, which is being reproduced herein under:- “63. Appeal. - (1) Any person aggrieved by any order of the Superintending Mining Engineer, Superintending Mining Engineer (Vigilance), Mining Engineer, Mining Engineer (Vigilance), Assistant Mining Engineer or Assistant Mining Engineer (Vigilance) passed under these rules shall have the right of appeal Director Minesauthorized by the Government. the Additional (2) Any person aggrieved by any order passed in appeal under sub-rule (1) or any other order passed by the Director or Additional Director Mines under these rules shall have the right of appeal to the Government. (3) Every appeal shall be made in Form -29 in duplicate and shall be accompanied by a fee of rupees five thousand. [2025:RJ-JP:34054] (4 of 6) [CW-8972/2025] (4) An appeal shall be filed within three months of the date of communication of the order appealed against: Provided that an appeal may be admitted after the said period if the appellate authority is satisfied that the appellant has sufficient cause for not filing the appeal within the said period but the appeal shall not be admitted after expiry of six month from the date of order appealed against.”

10. It is to be noted that the proviso to sub rule (4) of Rule63 provides the Appellate Authority possesses the power to admit an appeal even after expiry of the period of three months from the date of communication of the order, however, before the expiry of the period of six months.

11. A look at the impugned order reveals that the Appellate Authority has rejected the appeal by simply observing that more than six months’ period has since passed, from the date of impugned order (05.09.2018), without ascertaining as to when the order under appeal was served.

12. In the opinion of this Court, the statutory provisions, so also judgment of this Court rendered in the case of Madan Lal(supra), clearly provides that the Appellate Authority is required to reckon the limitation period from the date of communication of the impugned order. But, in the instant case the Appellate Authority has not even examined or recorded the finding as to when the order under appeal was served/ communicated.

13. This being the position, writ petition is allowed. Impugned order dated 16.04.2021 is hereby quashed and set aside.

14. The Courts often come across such instances where the appellants plead in their condonation [2025:RJ-JP:34054] (5 of 6) [CW-8972/2025] applications under Rule 63(4) of the Rules of 2017 read with Section 5 of Limitation Act that the order impugned was not served upon them. It is intriguing to note that neither the appellants indicate the specific date as to when the order under appeal was received/served nor does the Appellate Authority record a finding about the date of service. And, appeals without seeking condonation of delay are rejected cursorily while simply observing that the appeal has been filed after six months of the date of impugned order.

15. Therefore, the Appellate Authority while deciding the application under rule 63(4) of the Rules of 2017 shall at the first instance record a finding about the date of communication or receipt of the order, then proceed to decide the application for condonation of delay in accordance with law.

16. For the purpose aforesaid, the Appellate Authority will be required to either call for the requisite record from the authority concerned or take a categorical affidavit in relation to service of the order from the concerned parties.

17. Upon the date of communication being ascertained, the Appellate Authority shall calculate the period of three/six months, commencing from such date. In case the delay is not beyond the maximum period of delay which can be condoned in terms of proviso to Rule 63(4) of the Rules of 2017, he/she would condone the delay, of course, if sufficient reasons have been shown.

18. The appeal before the Appellate Authority is restored. It will be required of the petitioner to place a copy of the instant order before the Appellate Authority within a period of four weeks, on receipt [2025:RJ-JP:34054] (6 of 6) [CW-8972/2025] of a copy of the order the Appellate Authority in turn shall issue a notice to the petitioner indicating the date of hearing, whereafter application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal shall be considered and decided inaccordance with law and in terms of the directions given hereinabove.”

8. In the considered opinion of this Court, it is the bounden duty of the Appellate Authority to pass reasoned and speaking orders on the ground taken by the applicant in the application submitted under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and the grounds mentioned in the memo of appeal.

9. On this count alone, the order passed by the Appellate Authority stands quashed and set-aside. The matter is remitted to the Appellate Authority to decide Section 5 Application and appeal afresh, after affording due opportunity of hearing to both the sides within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

10. Stay application and all pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. Aayush Sharma /86 (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J