M/S. Kamal Minchem vs State Of Rajasthan
2021 Latest Caselaw 3208 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 451/2020

M/s. Kamal Minchem, Through Its Partner Poonamchand Jain S/o Shri Rikhabchand, Aged 47 Years, House No. B-386, Shastri Nagar, Bhilwara

----Appellant Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Mines Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

2. The Director, Mines And Geology Department, Directorate, Khanij Bhawan, Udaipur.

3. The Superintending Mining Engineer, Mines And Geology Department, Udaipur.

4. The Mining Engineer, Mines And Geology Department, Bhilwara

----Respondents

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Bhushan Singh Charan For Respondent(s) :

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. INDRAJIT MAHANTY HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

Order

05/02/2021

1. The matter comes upon an application under Section 5 of the

Limitation Act.

2. Learned counsel for the applicant-appellant seeking

condonation of delay of 1743 days, submitted that though the

applicant's writ petition came to be dismissed by this Court vide

order dated 05.10.2015, however, the applicant-appellant was

under impression that the respondent- Mining Authorities will

provide opportunity of hearing to it, as has been done in case(s)

(2 of 2) [SAW-451/2020]

of other similarly situated writ petitioners whose cases were

decided alongwith it.

3. He submitted that the applicant-appellant was bonafidely

waiting for the notice to be issued by the Mining Department and

since it did not receive any notice, it has decided to prefer the

present special appeal.

4. According to the learned counsel, the delay is bonafide and

deserves to be condoned.

5. In considered opinion of this Court, the facts or incidents

happening after passing of the order dated 05.10.2015, hardly

have any bearing so far as applicant-appellant's right to prefer an

appeal against the impugned judgment is concerned, particularly

when its writ petition was dismissed.

6. The reasons for inordinate delay of four years, assigned by

the applicant-appellant in his application does not amount to

reasonable cause for which the applicant-appellant was prevented

from filing the present appeal.

7. The application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is, thus,

rejected.

8. As a natural corollary of dismissal of the application under

Section 5 of the Limitation Act, the appeal is also dismissed.

(DINESH MEHTA),J (INDRAJIT MAHANTY),CJ

29-pooja/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)