ORDER : Mr. Dinesh Mehta, J. 1. The petitioners have filed the present writ petitions inter alia challenging the orders of the revisional authorities i.e. Deputy Secretary Mines passed under Rule 43(1) of Miner Mineral Concession Rules, 1986. 2. For disposal of these writ petitions, facts of S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.9525/2007 are being taken into consideration which are:- 3. That the petitioner had applied for grant of mining lease of masonry stone (Cheja Pathar) for Village Barwa Tehsil Nawalgarh Distt. Jhunjhunu. The petitioner's application came to be rejected by the Mining Engineer vide his order dated 19.05.2005. 4. It is the case of the petitioner that she did not receive the said order dated 19.05.2005 sent by the respondents vide registered post and after coming to know about such order, she appeared before the respondent No.3 Mining Engineer and applied for certified copy thereof on 28.10.2005, which was provided to her on the same date. 5. On receipt of the certified copy of the order impugned, the petitioner filed an appeal under Rule 43(1) of the Rules of 1986 which came to be rejected by the Additional Director (Mines) vide his order dated 22.05.2007 on the ground of limitation. 6. Against the said order dated 22.05.2007, the petitioner preferred second appeal under Rule 43(2) of the Rules before the State Government which came to be decided by the Deputy Secretary (Mines) vide his order dated 03.11.2007. 7. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that admittedly the order impugned passed by the Mining Engineer had not been received by the petitioner. As soon as she learnt about the rejection of her application she immediately applied for the copy which was made available to her on 28.10.2005. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that if the limitation is reckoned from 28.10.2005, the appeal was filed well within the period of limitation. Mr. Dudi submitted that the first appellate Court have erred in rejecting the petitioner's appeal on the ground of limitation. 8. Mr. N.S.Chauhan, Additional Government Counsel appearing for the respondent-State submitted that despite receiving the copy on 28.10.2005, the petitioner had filed the appeal on 23.12.2005, which shows that she was not serious and diligent. Mr. Dudi submitted that the first appellate Court have erred in rejecting the petitioner's appeal on the ground of limitation. 8. Mr. N.S.Chauhan, Additional Government Counsel appearing for the respondent-State submitted that despite receiving the copy on 28.10.2005, the petitioner had filed the appeal on 23.12.2005, which shows that she was not serious and diligent. He further submitted that the order of rejection of her application was sent to her, by way of registered post which has been returned back by the postal authorities, as the petitioner was not available on the address given. He invited attention of this Court towards a detailed order passed by the Deputy Secretary (Mines) on 03.11.2007 wherein he has recorded a finding that not only the appeal was time barred, the petitioner was also negligent in pursuing her rights. Learned Counsel Mr. Chahuan also submitted that in the period interregnum, the area in question has been allotted to respondent No.4, third party rights in relation to the said area has been created, and lease is in operation hence interference at this stage is unwarranted. 9 Having considered the material on record, this Court finds that prior to the rejection of petitioners application, vide impugned order, the Mining Engineer had issued notices/reminders dated 27.10.2007, 08.12.2004 and 16.02.2005, which were not paid any heed by the petitioner. These facts are evident from the order impugned dated 19.05.2005 and the order of the Deputy Secretary (Mines). 9 Having considered the material on record, this Court finds that prior to the rejection of petitioners application, vide impugned order, the Mining Engineer had issued notices/reminders dated 27.10.2007, 08.12.2004 and 16.02.2005, which were not paid any heed by the petitioner. These facts are evident from the order impugned dated 19.05.2005 and the order of the Deputy Secretary (Mines). The relevant observation made by the Deputy Secretary (Mines) is as under :- ^^vfHkHkk"kd vihykFkhZ dh cgl lquh xbZ ,oa rF;kRed izfrosnu o i=koyh dk voyksdu dj euu fd;k x;kA vihykFkhZ;k dks vkosnu i= dh dfe;ksa dh iwfrZ gsrq foHkkxh; uksfVl fnukad 27-10-2004 tkjh fd;k x;k tks vihykFkhZ;k dks izkIr gks x;k vkSj vihykFkhZ;k us bldk izR;qRrj ugh fn;kA le;kof/k esa ikyuk ugha fd, tkus ds dkj.k iqu% foHkkxh; uksfVl fnukad 08-12-2004 o Lej.k i= fnukad 16-02-2005 tkjh fd;k x;k ftldh iw.kZ ikyuk ugha fd, tkus ds dkj.k vLohd`fr vkns'k fnukad 19-05-2005 [kfut vfHk;Urk }kjk tkjh fd;k x;kA vLohd`fr vkns'k vihykFkhZ;k dks mlh irs ij Hkstk x;k ftl ij iwoZ uksfVl tkjh fd;s x;s Fks tks vihykFkhZ;k dks izkIr gks x;s FksA bl izdkj [kfut vfHk;Urk us vihykFkhZ;k dks i;kZIr volj nsdj mldk izkFkZuk i= vLohd`r fd;k x;k vkSj jft0 ,0Mh0 ls ml irs ij Hkstk x;k ftl ij iwoZ uksfVl rkehy gq, FksA tc iwoZ ds uksfVl ftl irs ij Hksts x, Fks] os izkIr gks x;s rks vLohd`fr vkns'k Hkh vo'; izkIr gksus pkfg,A vihykFkhZ;k ds }kjk foHkkxh; jftLV~h izkIr ugha djus ds dkj.k gh vufMyhoMZ okil izkIr gks xbZA mDr vkns'k fnukad 19-05-2005 ds fo:) izFke vihy vihykFkhZ;k }kjk v/khuLFk U;k;ky; esa foyEc ls izLrqr dh xbZA foyEc ls izFke vihy is'k djus ds tks dkj.k crk;s x;s gSa os vi;kZIr gSA vihykFkhZ;k@vkosnd dk ;g nkf;Ro gS fd foHkkx esa [kuu iV~Vk pkgus gsrq vkosnu is'k djus ds ckn og yxkrkj foHkkx ls lEidZ cuk, j[ksa ,oa dfe;ksa dh iwfr djsaA izLrqr izdj.k esa vihykFkhZ;k dks ckj&ckj dfe;ksa dh iwfrZ djus gsrq uksfVl tkjh fd, x, ijUrq vihykFkhZ;k }kjk dfe;ksa dh iwfrZ dh ugha dh xbZ ftlds fy, vihykFkhZ;k Lo;a nks"kh gSA** 10. In the present factual matrix, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner is not vigilant for pursuing her rights inasmuch she had not cared to complete the formalaties as required by the respondents, despite notices and thereafter, also having suffered rejection of her application, she did not file the same in time. In the present factual matrix, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner is not vigilant for pursuing her rights inasmuch she had not cared to complete the formalaties as required by the respondents, despite notices and thereafter, also having suffered rejection of her application, she did not file the same in time. Even after obtaining certified copy on 28.10.2005, she kept waiting till 23.12.2005 for filing the appeal. Petitioner's lackluster attitude dis-entitles her from invoking equity jurisdiction, more so, when third party rights have been created. Apart from this, since the area in question has been allotted to respondent No.4 who is operating mining lease, this Court does not want to exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction in favour of the petitioner. In this view of the matter, these writ petitions fail and are hereby dismissed.