ORDER : S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16384/2022: 1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved of the order dated 20.06.2022 (Annex.3) whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner has been dismissed as barred by limitation. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner made submissions that the appeal filed by the petitioner has been rejected by the Additional Director, Mines without dealing with the aspects raised by the petitioner regarding the appeal being within limitation and therefore, the order passed by the Additional Director, Mines deserves to be quashed and set aside. 3. Learned counsel for the respondents made submissions that the plea sought to be raised by the petitioner stands answered from the annexures filed with the reply and, therefore, the writ petition deserves dismissal. 4. I have considered the submissions made by the counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record. 5. By order impugned dated 20.06.2022, the appellate authority though noticed the fact that limitation for filing the appeal is three months from the date of receipt of the impugned order, however, after noticing the said aspect without indicating and/or dealing with the facts pertaining to the plea raised by the petitioner regarding the appeal being within limitation and the respondents’ plea indicating the petitioner was well aware of passing of the order impugned, the following has been observed: ^^pwafd mDr vihy [kfut vfHk;Urk] jktlean [k.M&f}rh; ds Øekad [k v@jkt&1@lhlh&2@,evkj@,e,y&134@1984@476 fnukad 29-03-2016 ds fo:) bl U;k;ky; esa fnukad 28-05-2022 dks 6 ekg ls vf/kd le; O;rhr gksus ds i'pkr ÁLrqr dh gS] tks xzkg~; ugha gksus ls fu;e 63¼4½ ds varxZr vLohd`r dh tkrh gSA** 6. The order passed by the appellate authority, for rejecting the appeal as barred by limitation, is absolutely non-speaking and it does not even indicate as to in what manner the plea raised by the petitioner cannot be accepted. 7. In that view of the matter, the order dated 20.06.2022 passed by the appellate authority cannot be sustained, the same is therefore, quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded back to the appellate authority to hear and decide the plea raised by the petitioner pertaining to the appeal being within limitation and objection of the respondents qua the same plea and in case the appeal is found within limitation, to decide the same on merits. The matter is remanded back to the appellate authority to hear and decide the plea raised by the petitioner pertaining to the appeal being within limitation and objection of the respondents qua the same plea and in case the appeal is found within limitation, to decide the same on merits. The parties shall appear before the appellate authority on 31.05.2023 in the first instance. 8. With the above directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15286/2022: 9. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved of the order dated 09.05.2022 (Annex.14) whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner has been dismissed as barred by limitation. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner made submissions that the appeal filed by the petitioner has been rejected by the Joint Secretary, Mines without dealing with the aspects raised by the petitioner regarding the appeal being within limitation and therefore, the order passed by the Joint Secretary, Mines deserves to be quashed and set aside. 11. Learned counsel for the respondents made submissions that the plea sought to be raised by the petitioner stands answered from the annexures filed with the reply and, therefore, the writ petition deserves dismissal. 12. I have considered the submissions made by the counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record. 13. By order impugned dated 09.05.2022, the appellate authority though noticed the fact that limitation for filing the appeal is three months from the date of receipt of the impugned order, however, after noticing the said aspect without indicating and/or dealing with the facts pertaining to the plea raised by the petitioner regarding the appeal being within limitation and the respondents’ plea indicating the petitioner was well aware of passing of the order impugned, the following has been observed: ^^ÁLrqr fjohtu vkns'k fnukad ls N% ekg dh vof/k i'pkr is'k dh xbZ gSa tks jktLFkku vÁ/kku [kfut fj;klr fu;e] 2017 ds fu;eksa esa xzg.k ;ksX; ugha gksus ls vLohdkj dh tkrh gSA** 14. The order passed by the appellate authority, for rejecting the revision as barred by limitation, is absolutely non-speaking and it does not even indicate as to in what manner the plea raised by the petitioner cannot be accepted. 15. In that view of the matter, the order dated 09.05.2022 passed by the appellate authority cannot be sustained, the same is therefore, quashed and set aside. 15. In that view of the matter, the order dated 09.05.2022 passed by the appellate authority cannot be sustained, the same is therefore, quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded back to the appellate authority to hear and decide the plea raised by the petitioner pertaining to the appeal being within limitation and objection of the respondents qua the same plea and in case the appeal is found within limitation, to decide the same on merits. The parties shall appear before the authority on 31.05.2023 in the first instance. 16. With the above directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15304/2022: 17. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved of the order dated 06.09.2022 (Annex.4) whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner has been dismissed as barred by limitation. 18. Learned counsel for the petitioner made submissions that the appeal filed by the petitioner has been rejected by the Additional Director, Mines without dealing with the aspects raised by the petitioner regarding the appeal being within limitation and therefore, the order passed by the Additional Director, Mines deserves to be quashed and set aside. 19. Learned counsel for the respondents made submissions that the plea sought to be raised by the petitioner stands answered from the annexure filed with the reply and, therefore, the writ petition deserves dismissal. 20. I have considered the submissions made by the counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record. 21. By order impugned dated 06.09.2022, the appellate authority though noticed the fact that limitation for filing the appeal is three months from the date of receipt of the impugned order, however, after noticing the said aspect without indicating and/or dealing with the facts pertaining to the plea raised by the petitioner regarding the appeal being within limitation and the respondents’ plea indicating the petitioner was well aware of passing of the order impugned, the following has been observed: ^^pawfd mDr vihy [kfut vfHk;Urk] ukxkSj ds Øekad [k] v@ ukxkSj@Dokfj@2017 fnukad 01-02-2017 ds fo:} bl U;k;ky; esa fnukad 26-05-2022 dks 6 ekg ls vf/kd le; O;rhr gksus ds i'pkr ÁLrqr dh gS] tks xzkg~; ugha gksus ls fu;e 63¼4½ ds varxZr vLohd`r dh tkrh gSA** 22. The order passed by the appellate authority, for rejecting the appeal as barred by limitation, is absolutely non-speaking and it does not even indicate as to in what manner the plea raised by the petitioner cannot be accepted. 23. In that view of the matter, the order dated 06.09.2022 passed by the appellate authority cannot be sustained, the same is therefore, quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded back to the appellate authority to hear and decide the plea raised by the petitioner pertaining to the appeal being within limitation and objection of the respondents qua the same plea and in case the appeal is found within limitation, to decide the same on merits. The parties shall appear before the appellate authority on 31.05.2023 in the first instance. 24. With the above directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2035/2023: 25. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved of the order dated 10.09.2020 (Annex.4) whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner has been dismissed as barred by limitation. 26. Learned counsel for the petitioner made submissions that the appeal filed by the petitioner has been rejected by the Additional Director, Mines without dealing with the aspects raised by the petitioner regarding the appeal being within limitation and therefore, the order passed by the Additional Director, Mines deserves to be quashed and set aside. 27. Learned counsel for the respondents made submissions that the plea sought to be raised by the petitioner stands answered from the annexure filed with the reply and, therefore, the writ petition deserves dismissal. 28. I have considered the submissions made by the counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record. 27. Learned counsel for the respondents made submissions that the plea sought to be raised by the petitioner stands answered from the annexure filed with the reply and, therefore, the writ petition deserves dismissal. 28. I have considered the submissions made by the counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record. By order impugned dated 10.09.2020, the appellate authority though noticed the fact that limitation for filing the appeal is three months from the date of receipt of the impugned order, however, after noticing the said aspect without indicating and/or dealing with the facts pertaining to the plea raised by the petitioner regarding the appeal being within limitation and the respondents’ plea indicating the petitioner was well aware of passing of the order impugned, the following has been observed: ^^pwafd mDr vihy [kfut vfHk;Urk] jktlean [k.M&ÁFke ds Øekad [k v@jkt&1@lhlh&3@,evkj@,e,y&299@05@8458 fnukad 07-08-2020 ds fo:} bl U;k;ky; esa fnukad 04-08-2020 dks 6 ekg ls vf/kd le; O;rhr gksus ds i'pkr ÁLrqr dh gS] tks xzkg~; ugha gksus ls fu;e 63¼4½ ds varxZr vLohd`r dh tkrh gSA** 29. The order passed by the appellate authority, for rejecting the appeal as barred by limitation, is absolutely non-speaking and it does not even indicate as to in what manner the plea raised by the petitioner cannot be accepted. 30. In that view of the matter, the order dated 10.09.2020 passed by the appellate authority cannot be sustained, the same is therefore, quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded back to the appellate authority to hear and decide the plea raised by the petitioner pertaining to the appeal being within limitation and objection of the respondents qua the same plea and in case the appeal is found within limitation, to decide the same on merits. The parties shall appear before the appellate authority on 31.05.2023 in the first instance. 31. With the above directions, the writ petition stands disposed of.