Sri S. P. Singh for petitioner and Sri H. S. Nigam for respon dents, are heard. 2. By this petition, the petitioner seeks a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing impugned order dated 19-7-1995 passed by the Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut, contained in Annexure-21 to this petition. 3. Without entering into merits of the case, we are of the opinion that since Legislature has taken care of enacting provisions under Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1963, (here in after referred to as the Rules) by way of amendment dated 24-8-1995 inserting Rule 77 and 78 providing for appeal and revision, therefore, no interference is called for in the writ jurisdiction. 4. In the instant case, the petitioner has already invoked Rule 77 by preferring an appeal before the learned Commissioner. If the petitioner is aggrieved against the order passed by the Commissioner, indeed he may approach to the State Government by preferring a revision under Rule 78 of the Rules. 5. At this stage Sri Singh states that many high officials are involved and per sons in the ministry are interested in the matter, and therefore the petitioner ap prehends that he will not get fair justice. 6. The State at present is under President Rule, and as such whatever apprehensions are in the petitioners mind, the same have no foundation. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the provisions of the Rules particularly the amendment dated 24-8-1995, we direct that if the petitioner avails statutory remedy under Rule 78 by preferring a revision before the appropriate authority, the same shall be disposed of within a period of 15 days from the date of its presentation after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to all concerned and by passing a speaking order. 8. We may further observe here that as the petitioner has not taken action within the statutory period of limitation in invoking Rule 78, the same powers may be exercised which are under sub-clause (1) of Rule 78 which postulate that even suo motu action may be taken. Thus, in these circumstances, the petitioner is not required to make any application for condoning the delay in filing the revision. 9. With the above directions, this petition is finally disposed of. 10. Sri Vinay Malaviya, learned Standing counsel for the State, takes notice. Petition disposed of. .