Judgment 1. The petitioner herein filed a writ petition in W.P.No.25116 of 2009 before this Court to quash the proceedings dated 23.10.2009 of the second respondent granting mining lease in favour of the fourth respondent. 2. The said writ petition viz. W.P.No.25116 of 2009 was dismissed on 20.04.2010 on the ground of availability of alternative remedy of filing revision under the Act. Further, the petitioner was permitted to file revision application, within ten days from the date of receipt of a copy of the said order, before the competent authority, under Section 30 of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 (Shortly "the Act") along with an application for condoning the delay. The Revision Authority was directed to dispose of the revision application on merits. 3. Pursuant to the order dated 20.04.2010 in W.P.No.25116 of 2009, the petitioner filed a revision application dated 20.05.2010 before the sixth respondent. 4. The revision application was listed on various dates for hearing. However, no hearing took place and the same was postponed by the sixth respondent on its own. 5. While so, a telegram dated 08.10.2011 was sent by the sixth respondent stating that the hearing fixed on 14.10.2011 was postponed to 17.10.2011 due to administrative reasons. 6. The petitioner sent a letter dated 13.10.2011 to the sixth respondent requesting adjournment of the hearing stating that since the Local Body elections in Tamil Nadu were to be held on 17.10.2011 and 19.10.2011 and their Advocate was contesting the elections, it is not possible for them to bring their Advocate on the hearing date. 7. While so, the sixth respondent sent a telegram dated 11.11.2011 stating that the hearing was fixed on 14.11.2011. Immediately on receipt of the telegram dated 11.11.2011, the petitioner sent a letter on the same day viz. 11.11.2011 through speed post stating that the date of hearing was fixed within a short period and their Advocate is not able to attend the hearing on 14.11.2011. The petitioner sought adjournment and also expressed sorry for the inconvenience caused to the Revision Authority. 8. In these circumstances, the sixth respondent authority passed the impugned order dated 25.11.2011 dismissing the revision application by recording that the revisionist did not seem to be serious and therefore, the revision application is not admitted. 9. The petitioner sought adjournment and also expressed sorry for the inconvenience caused to the Revision Authority. 8. In these circumstances, the sixth respondent authority passed the impugned order dated 25.11.2011 dismissing the revision application by recording that the revisionist did not seem to be serious and therefore, the revision application is not admitted. 9. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an application before the Revision Authority for restoration of the revision application and the same was dismissed by the sixth respondent, by an order dated 27.02.2012, on the ground that the sixth respondent has no power under the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 and the Rules framed thereunder, to review the order passed in the revision application. It is further stated therein that if the petitioners have any grievance against the orders, they could agitate the same in an appropriate judicial forum. 10. In these circumstances, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking to quash the order dated 25.11.2011 of the sixth respondent dismissing the revision application and the order dated 27.02.2012 of the sixth respondent refusing to review the said order and also sought for a direction to the respondents 5 and 6 to restore the revision application filed by them and to dispose the same on merits. 11. The fourth respondent filed counter affidavit refuting the allegations made by the petitioner. 12. Heard the submissions made on either side. 13. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order was passed by the sixth respondent in blatant violation of principles of natural justice, since no sufficient opportunity was given to the petitioner for the hearing that was to take place at New Delhi, while the petitioner is in Tamil Nadu, at a far off place. The learned counsel submitted that when only a short period fixing the hearing on 14.11.2011, was communicated through a telegram dated 11.11.2011, the petitioner immediately sent a request letter dated 11.11.2011 seeking adjournment stating that there was only a short period and it was not possible to take his Advocate for the hearing. It was further submitted that the fourth respondent did not file any remarks against the revision application as contemplated under Rule 55 of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 (Shortly "the Rules"). 14. It was further submitted that the fourth respondent did not file any remarks against the revision application as contemplated under Rule 55 of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 (Shortly "the Rules"). 14. The learned Special Government Pleader for the respondents 1 to 3 submitted that since the petitioner failed to appear for hearing, they could not blame the Revision Authority for passing the order dismissing the revision application. Thus, he sought for dismissal of the writ petition. 15. The learned counsel for the fourth respondent vehemently contended on merits that the revision application was not in conformity with the order dated 20.04.2010 passed by this Court in W.P.No.25116 of 2009, as no condone delay application was filed, as directed by this Court. It was further contended that the revision application was not filed within ten days as directed by this Court in the order dated 20.04.2010 in W.P.No.25116 of 2009. Further, it was submitted that the petitioner is not an aggrieved person to maintain revision application under Section 30 of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 and the rules framed thereunder, as the grant of mining lease in favour of the fourth respondent is for patta land only. 16. In reply, the learned counsel for the petitioner, disputed the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the fourth respondent. In any event, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the fourth respondent are to be raised, by filing suitable remarks, before the Revision Authority. But he failed to do so. The Revision Authority did not pass any order alleging that the petitioner did not comply with the order dated 20.04.2010 passed in W.P.No.25116 of 2009 and that the revision application was not maintainable as alleged by the fourth respondent. 17. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the sixth respondent ought to have disposed the revision application, on merits, particularly when the revision application was made in detail running to 12 pages giving various details and also when the fourth respondent did not make any remarks as contemplated under Rule 55 of the Rules. 18. I have considered the submissions made on either side and perused the materials available on record. 19. Rule 55 of the Rules is extracted here-under: "55. Orders on revision application. 18. I have considered the submissions made on either side and perused the materials available on record. 19. Rule 55 of the Rules is extracted here-under: "55. Orders on revision application. (1) On receipt on an application for revision under rule 54, copies thereof shall be sent to the State Government or other authority and to all the impleaded parties calling upon them to make such comments as they may like to make within three months from the date of issue of the communication, and the State Government or other authority and the impleaded parties, while furnishing comments to the Central Government shall simultaneously endorse a copy of the comments to the other parties. (2) Comments received from any party under sub-rule (1) shall be sent to the other parties for making such further comments as they may like to make within one month from the date of issue of the communication and the parties making further comments shall send them to all the other parties. (3) The revision application, the communications containing comments and counter-comments referred to in sub-rule (1) and (2) shall constitute the records of the case. (4) After considering the records referred to in sub-rule (3), the Central Government may confirm, modify or set aside the order or pass such other order in relation thereto as the Central Government may deem just and proper. (5) Pending the final disposal of an application for revision, the Central Government may, for sufficient cause, stay the execution of the order against which any revision application has been made." 20. As per Rule 55(1) of the Rules, the sixth respondent should have furnished the copies of the revision application to the State Government or the other authority for submitting their remarks within a period of three months. Thereafter, the comments received from the authority shall be given to the petitioner for making further comments, as the petitioner may like to make, within one month from the date of issuance of the communication. 21. The further comments made by the petitioner, if any, shall be sent to the other parties, as per Rule 55(2) of the Rules. 22. Rule 55(3) of the Rules states that the revision application, the communications containing comments and counter comments, referred to in sub-rules (1) and (2), shall constitute the records of the case. 23. 21. The further comments made by the petitioner, if any, shall be sent to the other parties, as per Rule 55(2) of the Rules. 22. Rule 55(3) of the Rules states that the revision application, the communications containing comments and counter comments, referred to in sub-rules (1) and (2), shall constitute the records of the case. 23. In this case, the sixth respondent did not furnish any comments of the State Government or the fourth respondent as contemplated under Rule 55(1) of the Rules. It is not stated in the counter affidavit filed before this Court or during the arguments of the learned counsel for the fourth respondent that the fourth respondent gave comments as contemplated under Rule 55(1) of the Rules. Further, the sixth respondent did not dispose the revision application, on merits. 24. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, Rule 55(4) of the Rules mandates that the revision authority shall pass orders in the revision application on merits and the revision authority shall not dispose the revision application in this fashion, particularly when there was no comments from the State Government or from the fourth respondent herein. When Rule 55(3) of the Rules states that the revision application, the communication containing comments and counter comments referred to in sub-rules (1) and (2) shall constitute the records of the case, I am of the view that the learned counsel for the petitioner is correct in his submission that the revision authority should have passed orders, on merits, in the revision application. 25. I have come to the aforesaid conclusion by taking into account the wording of Rule 55(4) of the Rules. 26. Rule 55(4) of the Rules states that the sixth respondent has to pass orders in the revision application, either confirming, modifying, or setting aside the order, after considering the records referred in sub-rule (3). In view of Rule 55(4) of the Rules, the sixth respondent shall consider the records referred to in sub-rule (3) while disposing the review application. 27. In this case, the only record is the review application and no comments were made by the other parties, on the revision application. Even if the petitioner did not appear, he should have heard the other parties and decided the issue on merits. The sixth respondent ought not to have passed orders, in this fashion. 28. 27. In this case, the only record is the review application and no comments were made by the other parties, on the revision application. Even if the petitioner did not appear, he should have heard the other parties and decided the issue on merits. The sixth respondent ought not to have passed orders, in this fashion. 28. In these circumstances, since I have come to the conclusion that the impugned order was passed in blatant violation of principles of natural justice and also the sixth respondent failed to pass orders on merits, as contemplated under Rule 55(4) of the Rules, I am inclined to set aside the impugned orders. 29. Accordingly, the impugned orders are quashed and the writ petition is allowed and the matter is remanded back to the sixth respondent for deciding the revision application on merits and in accordance with law, after hearing both parties. The fourth respondent is free to make all the allegations that are made in the counter affidavit and also during the arguments before this Court, by way of filing comments and also making arguments, before the revision authority. The sixth respondent is directed to dispose of the revision application, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.