JUDGMENT D. P. Sinha, J. This is a civil writ application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India in which Sultan Ghalib, the petitioner, has prayed that the order dated the 16tb August, 1974 which is Annexure-l to this application passed by the Commissioner of Mines and Geology, Bihar, respondent no.2, in Revision Case No.1 of 1973, setting aside an order dated the 19th April, 1972 of the Collector of Monghyr granting mining lease of an area of 3 acres in favour of the petitioner, be set aside and an appropriate writ Or direction as may be deemed fit, be issued. 2. The undisputed facts on which the prayers are based are these: The petitioner as also Rup Chand Sao, respondent no. 5 and Tilak Prasad, respondent no. 6, applied for grant of mining leases in respect of different areas. On the recommendation of the Mining Officer, the Collector by his order dated the 19th April, 1972 granted mining leases in their favour of areas which were much smaller than the areas applied for by them. The grant was made in favour of the petitioner of an area of 3 acres and of 3. 5 acres in favour of opposite party no. 5 and an area of 1.5 acres in favour of opposite party no. 6. In this case there is no dispute relating to the area approved in favour of opposite party no. 6. So far as opposite party no. 5 is concerned, he felt aggrieved because of the fact that a portion of the area applied for by him was included in the area of 3 acres which was ordered by the Collector to be settled with the petitioner. 3. Opposite party no. 5 made an application on the 25th April, 1972 before the Collector for a review of the order dated 19th April. 1972. In the meantime, the lease in favour of the petitioner was executed on 27th April, 1972 and registered. The Collector rejected the application for review on the 21st November, 1972 holding that he had no power to review the order,. Thereupon respondent no. 5 made an application for revision before the Commissioner of Mines and Geology (respondent no. 2) against the order dated the 21st November, 1972 by which the Collector had rejected his review app1icaticn. That application was ad.l1ittedon the 20th February, 1973. Thereupon respondent no. 5 made an application for revision before the Commissioner of Mines and Geology (respondent no. 2) against the order dated the 21st November, 1972 by which the Collector had rejected his review app1icaticn. That application was ad.l1ittedon the 20th February, 1973. On the 14th April, 1973 respondent no.5 filed a petition saying that the revision had been preferred for setting aside the order of the Collector dated the 21st November, 1972 by which he had rejected the prayer for review but the said revision Was not maintainable and that, therefore, the revision application be treated as an application for revision of the order dated the 19th' April, 1972 passed by the Collector. The prayer appears to have been allowed and after the parties concerned were heard, respondent no.2 by his order dated the 16th August, 1974 set aside the order of the Collector dated the 19th April, 1972. It is the validity of the said order of respondent no. 2 which has been challenged in this application. 4. The aforesaid order appears to have been passed by respondent no. 2 In exercise of the powers conferred on him under rule 45 read with rule 46 (3) of the Bihar Minor Mineral Concession Rule 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the 1972 Rules) made by the Government of Bihar under section 15 of the Mines and Mineral (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', and all other powers in that behalf. The said rules came into force on the 31st July, 1972, and prior to the 31st of July, 1972 the Bihar Minor Mineral Concession Rules hereinafter referred to as the 1964 Rules-made by the Government of Bihar under the same powers, were inforce. The petitioner bad filed his application for grant of the mining lease on the 13th April, 1972 and respondent no.5 had applied for the same on the 15th March, 1972. The Collector had passed the order granting the leases on the 19th April, 1972. It would thus appear that the applications for grant of the mining leases and also the Collector's order granting the leases had been made during the operation of the 1964 Rules. 5. The Collector had passed the order granting the leases on the 19th April, 1972. It would thus appear that the applications for grant of the mining leases and also the Collector's order granting the leases had been made during the operation of the 1964 Rules. 5. Under sub-rule (i) of rule 24 of the 1964 Rules any person aggrieved by an order passed by the Collector under the said rules, except under rule 19 (rule 19 is not relevant for the present purpose) could within a period of 60 days from the date of such order, prefer an appeal to the Commissioner of the Division whose decision thereon was to be final provided that the appellate authority could condone any delay in filing the appeal on reasonable grounds. On such appeal, the appellate authority could confirm, set aside or modify the order under appeal, after giving the applicant opportunity of being beard, if necessary after considering the report of the Officer who gave the order under appeal. Admittedly respondent no. 5 did net prefer any appeal before the Commissioner of the Division, against the Collector's order dated the 19th April, 1972 as such after the expiry of 60 days from that date his right of appeal became barred. The period of sixty days expired on the 18th June, 1972. As already mentioned the 1972 Rules came into operation on the 3 1st July, 1972 i. e , about 43 days after expiry of the period of limitation for filing an appeal against the Collector's order under the 1964 Rules. There was no provision for revision under the said Rules. In the 1972 Rules which replaced the 1964 Rules there was no provision for appeal but a provision for revision to the Commissioner of Mines and Geology i. e. respondent no. 2 was made in rule 45 read with rule 46 of the Rules. 6. The contention of the petitioner is that respondent no. 2 had acted beyond his jurisdiction in entertaining the revision preferred by respondent no. 5, because the 1972 Rules had no retrospective operation and the remedy by way of appeal provided in the 1964 Rules not having been availed of by respondent no. 5, had already lapsed and become time barred and that, therefore, be had no right to prefer revision before respondent no. 2. 5, because the 1972 Rules had no retrospective operation and the remedy by way of appeal provided in the 1964 Rules not having been availed of by respondent no. 5, had already lapsed and become time barred and that, therefore, be had no right to prefer revision before respondent no. 2. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no.1, namely, the State of Bihar as also the learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no.5 contended that the 1972 Rules would apply because they had replaced the 1964 Rules and respondent no. 2 was competent by virtue of the proviso to rule 45 of 1972 Rules to condone the delay in filing the application if the applicant satisfied him that be had sufficient cause for not making the application within time and that respondent no. 2 had considered the matter and condoned the delay and that, therefore, the order passed by him setting aside the Collector's order was valid and not liable to challenge. 7. I do not think the contention of respondent has any force. It was not disputed that 1972 Rules were not retrospective. In the circumstances those rules could not apply to matters. which had been dealt with and disposed of under the 1964 Rules. The provisions of rule 44 (i) of 1972 Rules may also be noticed. They are as follows: "44. (i) On the commencement of these rules, the Bihar Minor Mineral Concession Rules] 964 shall cease to be in force, except as regards things done or omitted to be done before such commencement." It is quite obvious from the said provisions that 1964 Rules had been kept alive as regards things done or omitted to be done before the commencement of the 1972 Rules. Thus the provisions of Rule 2. (i) of the 1964 Rules had been continued and, therefore, the proper authority before whom respondent no. 3 could have preferred an appeal continued to be the Commissioner of the Division and it was the Commissioner of the Division who could have entertained an appeal against the Collector's order and it Was he who could have condoned the delay made by next filing the appeal within 60 days of that order, on reasonable grounds as empowered by the proviso to sub rule (i) of rule 24. 8. For the aforesaid reasons the entertainment of he revision preferred by respondent no. 8. For the aforesaid reasons the entertainment of he revision preferred by respondent no. 5 and the order passed by respondent no. 2 setting aside the Collector' order dated the 19th April, 1972 was without jurisdiction. 9. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no.5, cited the following cases in support of his argument: Rombyas Singh and others Vs. State of Bihar, Sangram Singh Vs. Election Tribunal, Kotah and another and Sitnram Motilal Kalal Vs. Santanu Prasad lal Shankar Bhatt None of those decisions is of any help in this case because they had been decided on the peculiar facts of those cases which were wholly dissimilar to the facts of this case. 10. Since the impugned order of respondent no. 2 was wholly without jurisdiction this writ petition is allowed. A writ of certiorari be issued quashing the order dated the 16th August, 1974 of respondent no. 2 contained in Annexure-I. Respondent no. 5 shall pay to the petitioner a sum of Rs. 100/as hearing fee. K.B.N. Singh, C.J. I agree. Application allowed.