JUDGMENT 1. - In each of the above numbered two writ petitions the orders of the Deputy Secretary to the Government of Rajasthan, Mining Department passed in exercise of the powers of revision conferred under Rule 64 of the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1977 and now Rule 47 of the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1986 are under challenge. 2. We are of the opinion that under Section 30 of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 a revision lies to the Central Government against the aforesaid order of the Deputy Secretary to the Government of Raj Mines Department made in exercise of his power under either Rule 64 of the Rajasthan Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 1977 or under Rule 47 of the Rajasthan Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 1986. This Court has taken a consistent view that the remedy of revision to the Central Government under Section 30 of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 is an alternative efficacious remedy and has declined to interfere in its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It does appear that in a few cases if the principles of natural justice were violated, this Court has made interference. The first case of this Court is Champlal v. State of Rajasthan 1974 RLW 330 wherein this Court took a view that the petitioner has an alternative remedy by way of revision under Section 30 of the aforesaid Act against the orders of the State Government before the Central Government and because he failed to avail the alternative remedy, he is not entitled to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of the Court. Again, in the case of Rajesh Kumar v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. S.B Civil Writ Petition No. 1928 of 1985, decided on January 7, 1986 similar view was taken by the learned Judge and it was held: "Revision petition lies to the Central Government under Section 30 of the Mining and Mineral (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 against the order (Annexure 4) dated 16th October, 1985 passed by the State Government on the revision petition of the petitioner. In my opinion the aforesaid remedy of revision is an equally efficacious remedy available to the petitioner in which he can agitate all the grounds which he is seeking to raise in this writ petition. In my opinion the aforesaid remedy of revision is an equally efficacious remedy available to the petitioner in which he can agitate all the grounds which he is seeking to raise in this writ petition. 1 a n unable to accept the contention of Shri Singhi that the revision petition before the Central Government is not of equally efficaicous remedy" 3. Again, in the case Kalyan Chand Agarwal v. The State of Rajasthan and Ors. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1469 of 1986, decided on September 23, 1986 similar view was taken and reliance was placed on the case of Kanhaiya Lal v. State of Rajasthan 1977 WLN 139 . The Court stated: "The alternative remedy of filing revision petition is available to the petition and the petitioner should avail it firstly and thereafter he can approach this Court for passing necessary orders or directions." 4. Mr. Cbaudhary, learned Counsel for the petitioners has brought to our notice a few other decisions of this Court. In the case of Yasin Bhai v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1334 of 1986, decided on May 1, 1987 it appears that the Court entertained the writ petition, but it does not appear that the view taken by this Court in the earlier aforesaid cases was either dealt with, distinguished or was not approved. It will appear from the perusal of the aforesaid case that the learned Judges did not decide the question as to whether the remedy under Section 30 of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 is an efficacious alternative remedy and whether still a writ petition should be entertained under Article 226 of the Constitution of India unless that remedy is first availed. 5. In another case Chandun Lal Jain and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan and Anr. D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 391 of 1988, decided on September 5, 1988 this Bench did entertain the writ petition, but it was in view of the extra-ordinary facts and circumstances of that case that the writ petition was entertained despite the fact that remedy of revision to the Central Government was not availed. 6. In case of Ganpat Ram Saini v. The State of Rajasthan and Ors. D B. Civil Writ Petition No. 735 of 1986, decided on November 10, 1987 the question of alternative remedy was not even considered. 7. 6. In case of Ganpat Ram Saini v. The State of Rajasthan and Ors. D B. Civil Writ Petition No. 735 of 1986, decided on November 10, 1987 the question of alternative remedy was not even considered. 7. Another Single Bench of this Court in the case of M/s Neel Kanth Chemical Works, Jodhpur v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1241 of 1980, decided on October 10, 1980 did consider this question but held that there was clear violation of principles of natural justice and thus the impugned orders in that case were non-est, null and void and no order whatsoever. The Court said: "The impugned order becomes non-est, null and void and no order having any existence what so ever. If that is so, then the alleged alternative remedy of filing appeal or review or revision here or before the Central Government cannot have such a drastic restrain on this court to prohibit it from interfering in an obvious patent case of a citizen being deprived of the valuable legal right, if not fundamental right and to limit the fundamental right also, so far as interference under Article 19 is concerned and a Constitutional right under Article 300A is concerned." 8. We may state that generally this Court does not exercise its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India which powers are special and extraordinary, in case there is efficacious alternative remedy. There are few exceptions to the general rule and they are: (i) there has been violation of principles of natural justice; (ii) the order is without jurisdiction; and (iii) vires of any provision of the statute are involved. In the present case the case of the petitioners does not fall in any of the three exceptions enumerated above and because a revision lies against the impugned orders, we decline to invoke our extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 9. As a consequence of our discussions, both the writ petitions are dismissed, but it is hereby observed that if a revision petition is filed before the Central Government and an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is filed, the Central Government shall consider the same sympathetically to have condoned the delay, if any. Costs made easy.Petitions dismissed. *******