ORDER 1. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioners- Anirudh Vyas and Charu Vyas, legal heirs of Late Shri Harish Vyas, challenging the order dated 18.06.2012, whereby mining lease application of Silica Sand was cancelled and the petitioners also feel aggrieved against the order dated 13.06.2018 passed in the Revision Application File No.25(62)/2012-RC-I. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that their father - Harish Vyas was granted mining lease of Silica Sand in the year 1969 for a period of twenty years and later on the same was extended, however, by order dated 18.06.2012, the said mining lease was cancelled. 3. Learned counsel submitted that father of the petitioner felt aggrieved against the order dated 18.06.2012 and filed a Revision Application under Section 30 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (in short 'the Act of 1957') and Rule 36 of the Minerals (Other than Atomic and Hydro Carbon Energy Mineral Concession) Rules, 2016 (MCR) (in short 'the Rules of 2016') before the Revisional Authority. 4. Learned counsel submitted that while the said Revision Application was pending, unfortunately father of the petitioners expired on 08.01.2016 and accordingly an application for substitution of legal heirs of late Shri Harish Vyas was filed before the Revisional Authority. 5. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner No.1 also filed additional affidavit before the Revisional Authority & brought certain facts on record relating to the issue of mining lease being co-terminus with the period of mining lease, as deemed extended. 6. Learned counsel submitted that the application filed by the legal heirs of late Shri Harish Vyas as well as additional affidavit, were not taken into account and the Revisional Authority passed an order dated 13.06.2018 against the dead person. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the order passed by the Revisional Authority is a nullity in the eyes of law as the same has been passed against the dead person. 8. Learned counsel further submitted that the Revisional Court has assigned only one reason of dismissing the Revision Petition on account of filing S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.1445/2011 before this Court. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the order passed by the Revisional Authority is required to be set aside by this Court, as the order is prima-facie illegal and without assigning any reasons. 10. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the order passed by the Revisional Authority is required to be set aside by this Court, as the order is prima-facie illegal and without assigning any reasons. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that during pendency of the Revision Petition, certain other developments have taken place and mining lease of the petitioner for Silica Sand was earlier a 'Major Mineral' but vide notification dated 10.02.2015, Silica Sand is now classified as 'Minor Mineral'. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that the petitioners are atleast now entitled to challenge the order passed on 18.06.2012 before the State Authorities by filing a Revision Petition before the Competent Authority. 12. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the State of Rajasthan has introduced Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2017, wherein as per Rule 64 Revision' now lies to the Government and the same is to be decided by an Officer not below Rank of Deputy Secretary, Mines. 13. Learned counsel submitted that even if this Court sets aside the order dated 13.06.2018 and remands the matter back to the Authority who had passed the order on 13.06.2018 under Section 30 of the Act of 1957 and Rule 36 of the Rues of 2016, however the revision will not be entertained by him as the 'Revision' is now maintainable before the Revisional Authority of the Government of Rajasthan, as per Rule 64 of the Rules of 2017. 14. Learned counsel Mr.Zakir Hussain, appearing for the respondents, submitted that the petitioners have already availed the remedy of Revision Petition and the Revision Petition has been decided after considering the entire facts, however, learned counsel submitted that if at all there is a remedy, now provided under the Rules of 2017, it is only by way of filing of the Revision Petition against cancellation of mining lease before the Competent Officer. 15. Learned counsel further submitted that if this Court considers the order dated 13.06.2018, was passed against the dead person, then this Court is required to pass order as per the relevant law. 16. I have heard the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 17. 15. Learned counsel further submitted that if this Court considers the order dated 13.06.2018, was passed against the dead person, then this Court is required to pass order as per the relevant law. 16. I have heard the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 17. This Court finds that the Revision Petition filed by father of the petitioners was sub-judice before the Revisional Authority and father of the petitioners expired during pendency of the said Revision Petition on 08.01.2016. 18. This Court finds that the order dated 13.06.2018 has been passed against a dead person and as such the order is to be treated as 'Nullity'. 19. This Court finds that once the application was filed by the legal heirs of late Shri Harish Vyas, before the Revisional Authority i.e. Central Government Mines, Department, New Delhi, the same ought to have been considered and then the order could have been passed. 20. This Court is left with no other option except to set aside the order dated 13.06.2018. This Court, in normal circumstances, would have remanded the matter to the same Authority which had passed the order while deciding the revision petition. 21. This Court finds that the Mineral for which Mining Lease was given to father of the petitioners, was Silica Sand which was earlier a 'Major Mineral' and on account of change of law and the issuance of notification dated 10.02.2015, the same is now classified as 'Minor Mineral', and if anybody feels aggrieved against the cancellation of Mining Lease, the only remedy is now by way of filing a Revision Petition under Rule 64 of the Rules of 2017. 22. This Court, considering all these facts, finds that the petitioners who have stepped into the shoes of their father, who was the original lease holder, may be permitted to agitate the issue of cancellation of Mining Lease and as such they are permitted to file Revision Petition before the Competent Authority- Deputy Secretary Mines, Government of Rajasthan, as per Rule 64 of the Rules of 2017. 23. 23. This Court is conscious that there is a provision of filing Revision Petition within three months from the date of communication of order, however, the proviso to Rule 64 provides that a person/applicant if shows sufficient cause for not filing the revision application in time, the Revisional Authority has been granted power to condone the delay. 24. This Court is also conscious of the fact that outer limit of condoning the delay is six months & the same has also been provided in the said proviso to Rule 64 of the Rules of 2017. 25. This Court, considering the facts that the order of cancellation of lease deed was passed on 18.06.2012 and the matter was pending before the Central Government in the Revision Petition and the Revision Petition has been dismissed on 13.06.2018 in absence of proper party, deems it fit to direct the petitioner to move appropriate application for condonation of delay and the Revisional Authority will not dismiss the Revision Petition of the petitioner only on account of not filing of the Revision Petition within three months or outer limit of six months and the Revision Petition may be considered on merits. 26. Accordingly, this Court sets aside the order dated 13.06.2018, with a direction to the petitioner to file a Revision Petition before the Competent Authority i.e. Deputy Secretary Mines within a period of three weeks and if the same is filed, the Authority concerned is expected to proceed according to law and the subsequent developments, which are said to have taken place. 27. Accordingly, the present writ petition stands disposed of.