JUDGMENT : MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL, J. 1. Issue notice. Notices are accepted by Mr. Zakir Hussain, learned Additional Government Counsel on behalf of the respondents. 2. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 04.02.2020 passed by the Court of learned Additional Director (Mines) in Appeal No. 20/2019 whereby, the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 17.03.2017 passed by the Mining Engineer, Alwar cancelling his mining lease, has been dismissed being barred by limitation. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it was his specific case in the memo of appeal that he was never communicated with the order dated 17.03.2017 and he preferred the appeal as soon as he came to know the same; but, the appellate authority, without calling for the record from the concerned authority or without making any enquiry in this regard, dismissed the appeal being barred by limitation. He submits that a co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 02.12.2021 in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5878/2019; Parmeshwar Lal Agarwal vs. State of Rajasthan and Others, involving identical controversy, directed the appellate authority to call for requisite record from the authority concerned or to take categorical affidavit in relation to service of the order from the concerned parties and to pass order afresh on limitation. He, therefore, prays that the writ petition be allowed, the order dated 04.02.2020 be quashed and set aside and the matter may be remanded back to the appellate authority for decision afresh. 4. Although, the learned State Counsel opposed the prayer; but, could not dispute that the appellate authority has dismissed the appeal being barred by limitation without recording a finding that despite communication of the order dated 17.03.2017, the appellant/petitioner failed to prefer the appeal within the period of limitation. 5. Heard. Considered. 6. This Court has, in case of Parmeshwar Lal Agarwal (supra), held as under: “12. In the opinion of this Court, the statutory provisions, so also judgment of this Court rendered in the case of Madan Lal (supra), clearly provides that the Appellate Authority is required to reckon the limitation period from the date of communication of the impugned order. But, in the instant case the Appellate Authority has not even examined or recorded the finding as to when the order under appeal was served/communicated. 13. This being the position, writ petition is allowed. But, in the instant case the Appellate Authority has not even examined or recorded the finding as to when the order under appeal was served/communicated. 13. This being the position, writ petition is allowed. Impugned order dated 19.07.2018 is hereby quashed and set aside. 14. The Courts often come across such instances where the appellants plead in their condonation applications under Rule 63(4) of the Rules of 2017, read with Section 5 of Limitation Act that the order impugned was not served upon them. It is intriguing to note that neither the appellants indicate the specific date as to when the order under appeal was received/served nor does the Appellate Authority record a finding about the date of service. And, appeals without seeking condonation of delay are rejected cursortly while simply observing that the appeal has been flied after six months of the date of impugned order. 15. Therefore, the Appellate Authority while deciding the application under rule 63(4) of the Rules of 2017 shall at the first instance record a finding about the date of communication or receipt of the order, then proceed to decide the application for condonation of delay in accordance with law. 16. For the purpose aforesaid the Appellate Authority will be required to either call for the requisite record from the authority concerned or take a categorical affidavit in relation to service of the order from the concerned parties. 17. Upon the date of communication being ascertained, the Appellate Authority shall calculate the period of three/six months, commencing from such date. In case the delay is not beyond the maximum period of delay which can be condoned in terms of proviso to Rule 63(4) of the Rules of 2017, he/she would condone the delay, of course, if sufficient reasons have been shown. 18. The appeal before the Appellate Authority is restored. It will be required of the petitioner to place a copy of the instant order before the Appellate Authority within a period of four weeks, on receipt of a copy of the order the Appellate Authority in turn shall a notice to the petitioner indicating the date of hearing, whereafter application for condonation of dealy in filing the appeal shall be considered and decided in accordance with law and in terms of the directions given hereinabove.” 7. It is specific case of the petitioner in his memo of appeal that he was never communicated with the order dated 17.03.2017; but, the appellate authority has dismissed the appeal being barred by limitation without recording a finding that despite communication of the order, the appeal was preferred beyond limitation. 8. In the aforesaid factual and legal backdrop, this Court deems it just and proper to allow the writ petition. 9. The writ petition is allowed accordingly. The order dated 04.02.2020 is quashed and set aside. The appeal No. 20/2019 is restored to its original number. The appellate authority shall decide the issue of limitation after either calling for the record from the office of the Mining Engineer, Alwar or taking affidavit of the respective parties in this regard.