JUDGMENT 1. - Jamaluddin, the petitioner in this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution was granted a mining lease under the Rajasthan Mineral Concession Rules, 1959, in respect of quarry No. 240/1 situated at Moti-Doongari in village Makrana under the older of the Assistant Mining Engineer, Makrana dated 18th March, 1974. The petitioner had executed a special power of attorney, dated 2nd July, 1975, in favour of Shri Jamil Ahmed, respondent No. 6. on 21st July, 1976, Shri Jamil Ahmed filed an application before the Mining Engineer for the transfer of the quarry in the name of Saluddin, respondent No. 5 and on the said application, the Assistant Mining Engineer passed an order on 10th September, 1976, for the transfer of the quarry in the name of Salauddin. On 26th September, 1977, the petitioner filed an appeal against the order of the Assistant Mining Engineer dated 10th September, 1976 before the Joint Director of Mines and Ge logy regarding the transfer of the quarry in favour of Salauddin. Along with the appeal aforesaid, the petitioner also filed an application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. The Joint Director of Mines and Geology, by his order dated 5th November, 1977 allowed the said appeal of the petitioner and set aside the order of the Assistant Mining Engineer dated 10th September, 1976 with regard to the transfer of the quarry in favour of Salauddin. Salauddin filed an appeal against the aforesaid order of the Joint Director of Mines and Geology dated 5th September, 1977, before the State Government and the said appeal was accepted by the order dated 28th January, 1978, passed by the Deputy Secretary to the Government of Rajasthan (Gr IV) Department and the order of the joint Director, Mines and Geology dated 5th November, 1977 was set aside on the view that the transfer order dated 10th September, 1976 passed by the Assistant Mining Engineer was just and proper and does not require any modification. The petitioner thereupon, on 12th July, 1978, filed a revision petition before the Central Government against the aforesaid order of the State Government dated 28th January, 1978 but the said revision petition was dismissed by the Central Government by its order dated 24th August, 1978, on the view that the revision petition had been filed after the expiry of three months from the date of the order and that there were no convincing grounds for condonation of delay in the filing of the revision petition. It appears that the petitioner has also filed a review petition before the State Government for the review of the order dated 28th January, 1978 and the said review petition is still pending consideration before the State Government. 2. The mining lease which was granted in favour of the petitioner & which was transferred in favour of Salauddin by order of the Asstt. Mining Engineer, dated 10th September, 1976, expired on 31st March, 1977 and thereafter the said lease has been renewed in the name of Salauddin. 3. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for the issue of a writ of certiorari to quash the order dated 24th August, 1978 passed by the Central Government and the order dated 28th January, 1978, passed by the State Government as well as the order dated 10th September, 1976, passed by the Assistant Mining Engineer. The petitioner has also prayed that the lease-deed, if any executed in favour of Salauddin, respondent No. 5 in pursuance of the order of the Assistant Mining Engineer dated 10th September, 1976 may also be quashed. 4. As pointed above, the Central Government has dismissed the revision petition filed by the petitioner on the preliminary ground that the revision petition filed by the petitioner was barred by time and in case the petitioner succeeds in establishing that the Central Government was not justified in rejecting the revision petition for the reasons set out in the order dated 24th August, 1978 the question as to the correctness of the order of the State Government dated 28th January 1978, would be a matter failing within the revisional jurisdiction of the Central Government. The scope of this writ petition mist therefore, be confined to the question as to the validity of the order dated 24th September, 1978, passed by the Central Government on the revision petition filed by the petitioner. 5. The scope of this writ petition mist therefore, be confined to the question as to the validity of the order dated 24th September, 1978, passed by the Central Government on the revision petition filed by the petitioner. 5. Shri H.M Parekh, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has submitted that the revision petition which was filed by the petitioner before the Central Government against the order of the State Government dated 28th Jan., 1973 was filed under the provisions of Section 30 of the Mines and Mineral (Regulation) Act, 1957, (hereinafter referred to as the Act') and that neither under the Act nor under the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959 is any period of limitation prescribed for filing a revision petition before the Cental Government. The submission of the learned counsel for, the petitioner is that the period of limitation on prescribed for filing revision petition under Rule 54 of the Mineral Concessions Rules, 1960 could have no application to the revision petition which was filed by the petitioner under Section 30 of the Act in as much as the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 do not have any application to the lease of the petitioner which was a lease governed by the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the Central Government has erred in rejecting the revision petition of the petitioner on the view that said revision petition was governed by the period of limitation prescribed in respect of a revision petition under Rule 54 of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 and that, in the absence of any period of limitation having been prescribed in respect of revision petition filed under section 30 in respect of leases of the minor minerals, the Central Government was not justified in dismissing the revision petition only because it had been filed after the expiry of the period of three months from the date of the impugned order of the State Government. 6. 6. The writ petition has been contested by Salauddin, respondent No. 5 as well as Jamil Ahmed, respondent No, 6 and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the said respondents have raised the following preliminary objections to the maintainability of the writ petition:- (1) The right of the petitioner, if any in the quarry which had been leased out to him came to an end after the expiry of the term of the said lease on 31st March, 1977 and the petitioner, having not taken any steps to have the lease renewed in his favour after 31st March, 1977, has no subsisting right in the quarry and, therefore, he has no locus standi to maintain the writ petition. (ii) The petitioner, in his writ petition has concealed material facts from the court and, therefore, he was not entitled to seek any relief under Article 226 of the Constitution. (iii) In view of the fact that the petitioner has already invoked the alternative remedy of filing a review petition against the order of the State Government dated 28th January, 1978, it is not open to the petitioner to concurrently prosecute this writ petition as well as the review petition before the State Government. 7. In so far as the first preliminary objection is concerned. the submission of Shri Mridul, the learned counsel for the respondent Salauddin, and Shri L.R. Mehta the learned counsel for the respondent Jamil Ahmed, is that before the expiry of the term of the lease of the quarry on 31st March, 1977, the petitioner did not file any application for renewal of the said lease in his favour and that Salauddin had submitted an application for renewal of the lease in his favour and on that a application the lease has now been renewed in favour of Salauddin. The submission of the Learned counsel for the aforesaid respondents is that the petitioner having not taken any steps to obtain a renewal of the lease in his favour his rights in the said lease were extinguished on 31st March, 1977 and that no point would be served in granting any relief to the petitioner in as much as even if the order for transfer of the lease was set side, the petitioner would not be able to get any effective relief in as much as the lease cannot be granted in his favour. Shri H.M. Parekh, the learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, has submitted that the renewal of the lease obtained by respondent Salauddin in his favour on the basis of the illegal order of transfer dated 10th September, 1976, will ensure to the benefit of the petitioner and in the event of the order of transfer dated 10th September, 1976, being set aside the lease which has been renewed in favour of Salauddin would stand transferred back in the name of the petitioner. In view of the fact that I am not going into the merits of the validity of the order of transfer dated 10th September, 1976, passed by the Assistant Mining Engineer as well as the order of the State Government upholding the said order of transfer and that is a matter which is to be gone in to by the Central Government in the revision petition if the impugned order dated 24th August, 1978 is set aside, it would be in the fitness of things that the question as to whether the petitioner can take the benefit of the lease which has been renewed in the came of the respondent Salauddin, is considered by the Central Government while dealing with the revision petition of the petitioner. 8. As regards the second preliminary objection, the learned counsel for the respondents Nos. 5 and 6 have submitted that the statement in paragraph 12 of the writ petition that the petitioner had filed a review petition but nothing had been done in it is false to the knowledge of the petitioner in as much as before the filing of the writ petition in this Court on 21st November, 1978, the petitioner in his review petition before the State Govt., had applied for stay of the operation of the order of the State Government dated 28th January, 1978 but the said stay petition was rejected by the State Government and that the review petition itself was fixed for hearing on 9th of January, 1979. It is true that the statement in paragraph 12 of the writ petition that nothing has been done in the review petition is not quite accurate but in my view, the said inaccuracy in the writ petition has no material bearing on the validity of the order of the Central Government dated 24th August, 1978 and, it cannot be made a ground for denying relief to the petitioner, if he is otherwise entitled to such a relief. 9. As regards the third preliminary objection, the submission of the learned counsel for the respondents Nos. 5 and 6 is that the petitioner cannot prosecute two independent remedies at the same time, viz. the review petition before the State Government against the order dated 28th January, 1978 as well as the writ petition for quashing the order of the Central Government dated 24th August 1978. As observed earlier the scope of the present writ petition has been confined not to challenge in the order of the Central Government dated 24th August, 1976 and the validity of the order of the State Government dated 28th January, 1978 is not in issue before me. The filing of the review petition against the aforesaid order of the State Government dated 28th January, 1978 cannot, therefore be a bar to the maintainability of the writ petition for quashing the order of the Central Government dated 24th August, 1978. It may be that if the petitioner succeeds in his review petition before the State Government he, may not proceed further with the revision petition which he had filed before at the Central Government but in case the review petition filed by the petitioner is dismissed by the State Government the said order will not conclude his revision petition because the scope of revision before a the Central Government against, the order dated 28th January, 1978, would not be the same as that of the revision petition that may be filed by the petitioner against the order of the State Government, of rejecting the review petition. In the revision petition against the order dated 28th January, 1978, the Central Government will be required to examine the legality of the order of the State Government, setting aside the order of the Joint Director of Mines and Geology, whereas in the revision petition that may be filed by the petitioner against the order rejecting the review petition the scope would be narrower and it would be confined only to the question as to whether the State Government was right in rejecting the review petition. Since the scope of the two revisions is different. It cannot be said that the filing of the review petition by the petitioner against the order of the State Government bars the maintainability of this writ petition. In case the petitioner succeeds in his writ petition and the matter is reminded to the Central Government, it would be open to the Central Government to require the petitioner to choose whether he wishes to pursue with the review petition but at this state the filing of the review petition by the petitioner before the State Government cannot be a ground for holding that the right petition is not maintainable. 10. Now I come to merits of the writ petition. 11. The submission of the learned counsel for respondent Nos. 5 and 6 is that the Central Government was justified in refusing to interfere in revision, in a case where a person files a revision petition of or considerable delay and that if the Central Government has dismissed the revision petition of the petitioner on the ground that he had not filed the revision petition within the period of three months from the date of the passing of the order sought to be revised and had not shown any convincing ground for condonation of delay , it cannot be said that the said order of the Central Government suffers from any legal infirmity. 12. 12. Section 30 of the Act lays down as under:- "Section 30:- Power of revision of Central Government:-The Central Government may, of its own motion or an application made within the prescribed time by an aggrieved party, revise any order made by a State Government or other authority in exercise of the posers conferred on it by or under this Act." In so far as leases relating to major minerals are concerned, the Central Government has framed the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960, and in Rule 54 of the said Rules it is prescribed that a revision petition against an order passed by the State Government must be filed within a period of two months, of the date of communication of the order to the applicant. In so far as minor minerals are concerned, this Chompalal v. State of Rajasthan, 1974 RLW 330 , has laid down that a revision petition lies to the Central Government under Section 30 of the against an order passed by the State Government in respect of leases of minor minerals. The Central Government has not framed any Rules prescribing the period of limitation for filing of a revision petition under Section 30 against the order passed by the State Government in relation to leases of minor minerals, nor has any period of limitation for such a revision petition been prescribed by the State Government in the Rajasthan Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 1959 framed by it. Thus, we find that no period of limitation has been prescribed for filing of a revision petition under Section 30 of the Act against an order passed by the State Government in relation to the leases of minor minerals and the revision petition which was filed by the petitioner on 12th July, 1978 against the order of the State Government dated 28th January, 1978 cannot be regarded as being barred by time. 13. It is true that in cases where no period of limitation is prescribed, it would be open to the Central Government to refuse to interfere in a case where revision petition has been filed after considerable delay. But then the Central Government will have to apply its mind to the facts of that particular case in order to come to the conclusion that the case is not a fit case for interference on the ground of undue delay in the filing of the revision petition. But then the Central Government will have to apply its mind to the facts of that particular case in order to come to the conclusion that the case is not a fit case for interference on the ground of undue delay in the filing of the revision petition. If the Central Government, without going into the merits of the case, dismisses a revision petition merely because it has been filed after the expiry of the period of three months from the date of the order sought to be revised and that no ground for condonation of delay is shown then it cannot be said that the Central Government his refused to interfere on the ground that the revision petition, has been filed after undue delay. In this context reference may by made to the decision of the Supreme Court in Chandra Bhushan and Anr. v. Deputy Director of Consolidation (Regional) UP and others, 1967 (2) SCR 287 In that case the High Court had dismissed a writ petition on the ground 6 at it have been filed after the period of 90 days and no attempt had been made to explain why the writ petition was not moved before the expiry of 90 days. The Supreme Court reversed the aforesaid decision of the High Court and has observed:- "The High court of Allahabad has not framed any rule prescribing a period of limitation for filing petitions for writs of certiorari under Article 226 of the Constitution Ordinarily in the absence of specific statutory rule, the High Court may be justified in rejecting a petition for a writ of certiorari against the judgment of a subordinate court or tribunal, if on a consideration of all the circumstances, it appears that there is undue delay. "They (High Court) appear to have exalted a rule of practice into a rule of limitation and rejected the application of the appellants without considering whether the appellants could be said to be guilty of laches of undue delay." 14. "They (High Court) appear to have exalted a rule of practice into a rule of limitation and rejected the application of the appellants without considering whether the appellants could be said to be guilty of laches of undue delay." 14. In my view, the aforesaid observations of the Supreme Court are fully applicable to the facts of the present case in as much as in passing the order dated 24th August, 1976, the Central Government appear, to have proceeded en the basis that the period of three months has been prescribed for filing a revision petition against an order of State Government passed under the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959 and that any revision petition which has been filed after the expiry of the said period of three months cannot be entertained unless the petitioner shows convincing grounds for condonation of delay. In the absence of any rule prescribing a period of three months as the period for filing a revision petition against an order passed in relation to the minor minerals, the Central Government could nut have proceeded on the basis that a revision application filed after the expiry of three months is barred by time. 15. There is nothing in the order passed by the Central Government to show that the Central Govt had found that the petitioner was guilty of laches or undue delay. The order of the Central Govt dated 24th August, 78, therefore, cannot be sustained. 16. The result is that writ petition is allowed and the order dated 24th August, 1978 passed by the Central Government is quashed and the Central Government is directed to decide the revision petition filed by the petitioner in accordance with law. Taking into consideration the circumstances of the case, it is directed that the parties shall bear their own costs in this writ petition.Writ allowed. *******