Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 1526 (RAJ)

Hanuman Ram Choudhary v. State of Rajasthan

2023-08-11

GANESH RAM MEENA

body2023
ORDER : Ganesh Ram Meena, J. The petitioner by way of present writ petition has challenged the order dated 15.10.2018 passed by the Addl. Director (Mines), Environment & Development, Rajasthan, Udaipur, whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner under Rules 63 and 64 of the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2017 (for short 'the Rules of 2017') was dismissed being time barred in view of Rule 63(4) of the Rules of 2017. 2. The facts borne out from the pleadings are that the petitioner Hanuman Ram Choudhary, who is being represented through his legal representative in the present case was holding a mining lease for the period up to 04.02.2001 and because of the reason that he did not submit any application for renewal of the mining lease, the period of lease expired on 04.02.2001. On expiry of the lease period, the Assistant Engineer (Mining), Banswara written a letter to his Subordinate Office on 14.02.2001 to take the possession of the lease area in favour of the State and thereafter the possession of the lease area was taken by the respondent authorities on 28.02.2001. Lease holder - Hanuman Ram Choudhary expired on 06.12.2015 and his legal heir filed an appeal against the letter dated 14.02.2001 under Rules 63 and 65 of the Rules of 2017. 3. The Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal of the petitioner vide order dated 15.10.2018 on the count that the appeal is time barred as the same has been filed after six months of the order under challenge i.e. the order dated 14.02.2001. 4. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the letter dated 14.02.2001 was never served upon them and the same was not within their knowledge. So, when the legal representative of the lease holder Hanuman Ram Choudhary came to know about the letter dated 14.02.2001 on 05.07.2017 and thereafter he obtained the copies of the letter dated 14.02.2001 and the possession report dated 27/28.02.2001. He further submits that he has moved an application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal but the Appellate Authority has observed that the reasons mentioned in the appeal for condonation of delay are not sufficient to condone the delay. 5. Considered the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner and perused the material available on the record. 6. 5. Considered the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner and perused the material available on the record. 6. As per the contents of para 6 of the writ petition, the period of mining lease expired on 04.02.2001 and because of non submitting the renewal application, a letter dated 14.02.2001 was issued for taking possession of the lease area and thereafter on 27/28.02.2001 the possession of the lease area was taken by the respondent authorities. Para 6 of the writ petition is quoted as under:- "6. That the petitioner started mines smoothly and time and time deposited dead rent of the mines and following the Rules applicable on his mines, but vide order dt. 14.02.2001 the respondent no.3 directed to the mining Foreman to take possession of the mining lease of petitioner stating reason that lease period expire on 4.2.2001 and no renewal application has been submitted and on 27.02.2001 the Foreman had taken the possession of the mining lease without any information to the petitioner and submitted a possession report on 28.02.2001 to the respondent no. 3. The copies of order dated 14.02.2001 and possession report dated 28.02.2001 along with report dated 27.02.2001 are submitted herewith and marked as Annexure-3 and 4. It is submitted that no copy of the order dated 14.02.2001 was served to the petitioner which is mandatory before taking any action against the petitioner and no any opportunity of hearing was provide to him and also for the possession of the mining lease only paper work had been completed no actual possession was taken from the petitioner." 7. In para 7 of the writ petition it has been stated that the lease holder expired on 06.12.2015 and the legal heir of the lease holder came to know about the order dated 14.02.2001 on 05.07.2017 and thereafter an appeal was filed by them. Para 7 of the writ petition is quoted as under:- "7. In para 7 of the writ petition it has been stated that the lease holder expired on 06.12.2015 and the legal heir of the lease holder came to know about the order dated 14.02.2001 on 05.07.2017 and thereafter an appeal was filed by them. Para 7 of the writ petition is quoted as under:- "7. That petitioner was died 06.12.2015 due to long sickness therefore for he was not informed this mining lease to his legal representative, it was time first come in knowledge of the legal representative of the petitioner on 05.07.2017 when he applied for the copies of the order dated 14.02.2001 and possession reports dated 27.02.2001 and 28.02.2001, thereafter, appeal under rule 63 of the Rules, 2017 along-with application for condonation of delay has been filed by the legal representative of the petitioner before the respondent no. 2. The photocopy of appeal along with application for condonation of delay is submitted herewith and marked a Annexure-5." 8. The present writ petition has been filed in the name of lease holder through his legal representative. Lease-holder Hanuman Ram Choudhary, as per the averment in the writ petition expired on 06.12.2015. So without there-being any material on the record, it cannot be said that the lease holder Hanuman Ram Choudhary was not having the knowledge of the order dated 14.02.2001 against which the appeal was preferred. As per the averments in the writ petition, the possession of the lease area was taken on 27/28.02.2001 but it is beyond imagine that the lease holder was not having the knowledge of the letter for taking possession for about 14 years. If the lease holder was not having knowledge of the letter of taking possession, he would have continued the mining operation, whereas the counsel for the petitioner has admitted this fact that the mining operation has not taken place after 04.02.2001. Rule 63 of the Rules of 2017 provides that any person aggrieved by an order shall have a right of an appeal to be filed within three months of the date of communication of the order appealed against and 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. However, there is a restriction clause that the appeal shall not be admitted after expiry of six months from the date of order appealed against. Rule 63 of the Rules of 1972 is quoted 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. (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." 9. The facts discussed and the provisions of law quoted above speak that the appeal filed by the petitioner is beyond the limitation period prescribed under the law. The petitioner could not show that the order against which an appeal has been preferred i.e. the order dated 14.02.2001 was never communicated to them. The facts of the case clearly speak that the lease holder was having the full knowledge of the order dated 14.02.2001 issued by the respondent authorities for taking possession of the lease area because once the possession was taken it is very much clear that the same was within the knowledge of the lease holder otherwise he could have continued the mining operation which admittedly was not done. 10. In view of the discussion made above, this court finds no illegality and perversity in the order dated 15.10.2018 passed by the the Addl. Director (Mines), Environment & Development, Rajasthan, Udaipur to call for any interference. 11. Hence, the present writ petition is dismissed. 12. 10. In view of the discussion made above, this court finds no illegality and perversity in the order dated 15.10.2018 passed by the the Addl. Director (Mines), Environment & Development, Rajasthan, Udaipur to call for any interference. 11. Hence, the present writ petition is dismissed. 12. Since the main petition has been dismissed, the stay application and the pending applications, if any, also stand dismissed.