JUDGMENT 1. - This writ petition filed by Krishan Kumar Bansal and R.K. Mittal u/Art. 226 of the Constitution of India arises out of the following fact & circumstances. The petitioners applied for rent cum-royalty leases in respect of wo plots-each measuring 200' x 200' & situated in an area known Pahar Kuva Makrana for one year by way of an application dated 13-8-1969 to the Mining Department. One Vali Mohammed son of Karim also presented an application on 4-11-1969 for grant of rent-cum royalty lease in respect of plot measuring 200' x 200' and situated in the same area. The Assistant Mining Engineer granted the lease to the petitioners vide the order dated 19-7 1972 In pursuance of this order rent-cum-royalty leases were executed in favour of the petitioner on 25-7-1972 in accordance with the form given under schedule IV of the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules 1977, hereinafter referred to as the Rules. Alter the leases were executed, the petitioners started working at the quarries and spent a huge amount in smoothly carry kg out the work.2-3. Aggrieved by the order of the Assistant Engineer dated 19-7-1972 (granting leases to the petitioners, Vali Mohammed filed an appeal under Rule 43 of the Rules before the Joint Director of Mines and Geology. The appeal, however, was dismissed in default on 28.5.1975 as neither the appellant nor his counsel had put in his appearance before the Joint Director when the appeal was called for hearing. Later on, the holder of the power of attorney on behalf of the petitioners filed an application before the Joint Director that the appeal may be reheard and the exparte order be set aside. This application was filed by the holder of the power of attorney on behalf of the petitioner under a wrong impression that the appeal had been decided exparte by the Joint Director. The Join Director of Mines and Geology restored the appeal to its original number on the application of the holder of power attorney on behalf of the petitioners, on being satisfied that the power-of-attorney holder could not put in his appearance before him on the dated when the appeal was called for hearing on account of having fallen sick. The appeal was subsequently heard on merits by the Joint Director and the rent-cum-royalty leases which had been granted in favour of the petitioners were cancelled. The appeal was subsequently heard on merits by the Joint Director and the rent-cum-royalty leases which had been granted in favour of the petitioners were cancelled. As against this order of the Joint Director of Mines and Geology dated 1-12 -1955, the petitioners preferred an appeal before the State Government which was dismissed on 9-9-1975, as is evident from the order marked Ex.6 which was passed by the Deputy Secretary to the Government of Rajasthan. Aggrieved by this order of the State Government, the petitioner No.l filed a writ petition in the High Court. The writ petition was dismissed by the High Court vide its order dated 1-4-1977 on the ground that an equally efficacious alternative remedy by way of revision to the Central Government was not availed of by the petitioner who should have first approached the Central Government for redress. The petitioners, therefore, filed a revision petition before the Centrai Government on 5-6 1977 against the order of the State Government The petitioners were asked by the Central Government to file a revision petition in a prescribed from "N" and so the petitioners again submitted the revision petition on 22-9-1977 in the prescribed form along with a treasury challan of Rs. 100/- as required by the Central Government. Along with this revision petition, the petitioners filed an application for condonation of delay in filing the revision. The Central Government dismissed the revision petition filed by the petitioners as time barred vide its order dated 25.10.1977 which reads as follows: "GOVERNMENT OF INDIA" MINISTRY OF STEEL AND MINES DEPARTMENT OF MINES REGISTERED FINAL ORDER... No. 944/77 No. 1(509)/77-MIV New Delhi, the 25-10-77 Shri Krishan Kumar Bansal s/o Sri R.P. Bansal, and Shri R K. Mittal s/o Shri B. P. Mittal, Makrana, Distt. Nagaur (Rajasthan) Subject:-- Revision application dated nil received on 23-9-77 under Rule 54 of Mineral Concession Rules 1960 Sir, I am directed to refer to your revision application dated nil received on 23-9-77 against the order of the State Government of Rajasthan, dated 9-9-76 This being so, you should have filed your revision application by 9-12-76 i e. within 3 months of the State Govt. order. The reasons for the delay as given by you have been carefully gone into but not found enough to justify the delay in filing the Revision Application. 2. order. The reasons for the delay as given by you have been carefully gone into but not found enough to justify the delay in filing the Revision Application. 2. The Central Government, therefore, in exercise of their revisional powers under Section 30 of the MM (R & D) Act & Rule 55 of the MCR, 1960 hereby dismiss your revision application as time barred. Yours faithfully, Sd/-I J. S. KHURANA DEPUTY SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF INDIAThe petitioners have now filed this writ petition challenging the orders passed by the Central Government, the State Government and the Joint Director of Mines and Geology on 25 10 1977, 9-9 1976 and 1-12-1975 respectively4. I have carefully perused the record and heard Mr. H.M. Parekh learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. R Mehta, learned Counsel for Padam-chand. Mr. R.R. Vyas appearing on behalf of non-petitioner No. 5 and Mr, M.D. Purohit Additional Government Advocate.5. It has been contended by Mr. Hastimal Parekh, learned Counsel for the petitioner that the Central Government has not framed any rule prescribing a period of limitation for filing a revision petition before it against an order passed by the State Government in respect of leases of minor minerals and, in the absence of any such specific rule, the Central Government was not justified in rejecting the petitioner's revision petition as time-barred on the ground that it has not been filed within a period of 3 months from the date on which the impugned order was passed by the State Government and no sufficient cause was shown for condonation of delay in filing it. Reliance in support of the above contention was placed on an authority of the Supreme Court Chandra Bhusan and Anr. v. Deputy Director of Consolidation (Regional) U.P and Ors.) reported in 1967 (2) SCR 287 and on a decision of the Single Bench of this Court Jamaluddin v. The State of Rajasthan reported in 1979 WLN (UC) 78 . The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the non-petitioners and the Additional Government Advocate could not succeed in controverting the legal position pointed out by Mr. Hastimal Pareekh appearing on behalf of the non-petitioners. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the non-petitioners and the Additional Government Advocate could not succeed in controverting the legal position pointed out by Mr. Hastimal Pareekh appearing on behalf of the non-petitioners. Consequently, I am of the view that no period of limitation for filing a revision petition under Section 30 of the Mines and Mineral Regulation Act, 1957, hereinafter referred to as the Act against the order of the State Government in respect of leased of minor minerals has been preseribed in any Rule framed by the Central Government, nor any period of limitation is prescribed under the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules 1959 also for filing a revisian petition before the Central Government in cases relating to minor minerals. It is no doubt true that, so far as leases relating to major minerals are concerned the Central Government has framed Rule 54 of the Mineral Concession Rules 1960 which prescribes a period of limitation of two months from the date of communication of the order to the applicant for filing a revision petition against an order passed by the State Government, but the period of limitation prescribed in this Rule cannot be made applicable to the revision petitions filed by the aggrieved party against the orders of the State Government relating to leases of minor minerals. The Central Government was, therefore, not justified in rejecting the petitioner's revision petition merely on the ground that it was not filed within three months from the date on which the impugned order was passed by the State Government and that no sufficient cause was shown for condonation of the delay in filing it. It will not be out of place to mention that the Central Government could refuse to entertain the revision petition, if upon consideration of all the circumstances, it was of the view that there was considerable undue delay in filing the revision petition and the petitioner could safely be held to be guilty of such laches. It will not be out of place to mention that the Central Government could refuse to entertain the revision petition, if upon consideration of all the circumstances, it was of the view that there was considerable undue delay in filing the revision petition and the petitioner could safely be held to be guilty of such laches. But in the instant case the Central Government appears to have proceeded on the assumption that a period of limitation of three months has been prescribed for filing such revision sagainst the order of the State Government relating to leases of minor minerals, and, as the revision petition has not been filed within three months from the date of the impugned order of the State Government and as no sufficient cause has been shown for condonation of delay in filing it, the revision petition must be dismissed on this score. In the absence of any rule framed by the Central Government prescribing a period of limitation for filing such revision petition must be dismissed on this score. In the absence of any rule framed by the Central Government prescribing a period of limitation for filing such revision petitions the Central Government was not justified in rejecting the petitione's revision on the ground that it was filed after the expiry of three months, specially, when it has not been mentioned in the order of the Central Government that the petitioner could be said to be guilty of laches or undue delay. Hence the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order passed by the Central Government on 25.10.1997 is quashed and the Central Government is directed to give its decision on the revision filed by the petitioners in accordance with law.In the circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear own costs of this writ petition.Writ allowed. *******