Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 1306 (RAJ)

Gopi Lal Gurjar v. State of Rajasthan

2023-07-05

GANESH RAM MEENA

body2023
JUDGMENT ORDER : Ganesh Ram Meena, J. The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner assailing the order dated 15.01.2020, passed by the Court of Joint Secretary Mines Department, Rajasthan Jaipur in Appeal No.118/2018, whereby the appeal filed by the appellant-petitioner was dismissed being time barred, in view of the Provisions of Rajasthan Mines Mineral Concessions Rules, 2017 (in short 'the Rules of 2017'). 2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner preferred an appeal against the order dated 05.09.2017 before the Appellate Authority on 19.06.2018. He also submits that the order dated 05.09.2017 issued by the Additional Director (Mines), Udaipur Zone, Udaipur was to be communicated to the petitioner through the Mining Engineer, Rajsamand-II, as evident from his endorsement. Counsel further submits that the Mining Engineer, Rajsamand-II communicated the order dated 05.09.2017 to the petitioner vide letter dated 13.06.2018 which was received by the petitioner on 14.06.2018 and soon after communication on 14.06.2018, the petitioner preferred an appeal on 19.06.2018. 3. Counsel for the petitioner submits that Rule 63 (4) of the Rules of 2017 provides for filing of an appeal within three months from the date of communication of the order appealed against. He also submits that in view of the factual position that the order appealed against was communicated to the petitioner on 14.06.2018 and the appeal was filed by him on 19.06.2018 It cannot be said to be time barred as the Appellate Authority dismissed his appeal being time barred. Counsel further submits that the order of the Appellate Authority is contrary to the Provisions of law and therefore, the same be quashed and set aside and the appeal filed by the appellant-petitioner may be ordered to be heard and considered on merits. 4. Counsel for the respondent-Department does not dispute the factual matrix as stated above being the matter of record. 5. Heard. Considered the submissions made by counsels for respective parties. 6. Rule 63 of the Rules of 2017 deals with the provision in regard to appeal and prescribed limitation period for filing an appeal which reads as under:- "63. Appeal.- (1) Any person aggrieved by any order of the Superintending Mining Engineer, Superintending Mining Engineer (Vigilance), Mining Engineer, Mining Engineer (Vigilance), Assistant Mining Engineer or Assistant Mining Engineer (Vigilance) passed under these rules shall have the right of appeal to the Additional Director Mines authorized by the Government. Appeal.- (1) Any person aggrieved by any order of the Superintending Mining Engineer, Superintending Mining Engineer (Vigilance), Mining Engineer, Mining Engineer (Vigilance), Assistant Mining Engineer or Assistant Mining Engineer (Vigilance) passed under these rules shall have the right of appeal to the Additional Director Mines authorized by the Government. (2) Any person aggrieved by any order passed in appeal under sub-rule (1) or any other order passed by the Director or Additional Director Mines under these rules shall have the right of appeal to the Government. (3) Every appeal shall be made in Form -29 in duplicate and shall be accompanied by a fee of rupees five thousand. (4) An appeal shall be filed within three months of the date of communication of the order appealed against: Provided that an appeal may be admitted after the said period if the appellate authority is satisfied that the appellant has sufficient cause for not filing the appeal within the said period but the appeal shall not be admitted after expiry of six month from the date of order appealed against" 7. Rule 63(4) of the Rules of 2017 speaks that an appeal could be filed within three months from the date of communication of order appealed against. 8. In the present case, the appeal has been filed against the order dated 05.09.2017, issued by the Additional Director (Mines), Udaipur Zone, Udaipur which was communicated to the petitioner through Mining Engineer, Rajasmand-II vide letter dated 13.06.2018, which was received by the petitioner on 14.06.2018 and thereafter, an appeal was filed by the petitioner-appellant on 19.06.2018. In view of the factual matrix of the case and the provisions of the law, an appeal filed before the Appellate Authority cannot be said to be time barred and therefore, the order of the Appellate Authority dismissing the appeal of the appellate-petitioner vide its order dated 15.01.2020 cannot be sustained and therefore, the same deserves to be quashed and set aside. 9. 9. In view of the discussions made above, the present writ petition is allowed and the order dated 15.01.2020, passed by the Court of Joint Secretary Mines Department, Rajasthan Jaipur in Appeal No.118/2018 is quashed and set aside and the appeal No.118/2018 filed by the appellant-petitioner against the order dated 05.09.2017 is restored and the Appellate Authority is directed to decide the same on merits within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.