Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
M/S. Sai Baba Granite vs State Of Rajasthan on 7 January, 2021
Bench: Vijay Bishnoi
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12985/2020
M/s. Sai Baba Granite, A Registered Partnership Firm, Plot No.
402, Navkar Apartment, Madanganj Kishangarh District Ajmer
Through Its Partner Sunil Kumar S/o Shri Raghuveer Singh Jat,
Aged About 32 Years, R/o Plot No. 402, Navkar Apartment,
Madanganj, Kishangarh District Ajmer.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Mines
Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat,
Jaipur.
2. The Additional Director (Enviornment And Development),
Directorate Of Mines And Geology Department, Udaipur.
3. Superintending Mining Engineer, Department Of Mines
And Geology, Bhilwara.
4. The Mining Engineer, Department Of Mines And Geology,
Bhilwara.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Arvind Shrimali (through VC)
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mrigraj Singh, Dy.G.C. (through
VC)
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI
Judgment / Order
07/01/2021
Learned counsel Mr. Mrigraj Singh is directed to
accept notice on behalf of the respondents.
This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner
being aggrieved against rejection of his appeal as barred
by limitation by the Additional Director (Mines), Udaipur.
(2 of 3) [CW-12985/2020]
It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner
that the issue raised in this writ petition is squarely
covered by the order passed by this Court in S.B. Civil
Writ Petition No.14920/2017 : Madan Lal v. State
of Rajasthan and Ors., decided on 11.05.2018,
whereby the petitions filed by the petitioners were
allowed and the matters were remanded back and
therefore, the present writ petition may also be decided
in terms of the order passed in the case of Madan Lal
(supra).
Learned counsel for the respondents is not in a
position to dispute that the issue raised in the present
petition is similar to the issue raised in the case of
Madan Lal (supra).
In the case of Madan Lal (supra), this Court after
considering the issue raised, directed as under :-
"In view of the above discussions, the
impugned orders passed by the respondent
No.2 - Additional Director (Environment &
Development), Mines & Geology, Udaipur
dismissing the appeals of the petitioners on
the ground of limitation are set aside with
the direction to the respondent No.2 to
decide the matter afresh after deciding the
application for condonation of the limitation
period as per Rule 63 of the Rajasthan Minor
Mineral Concession Rules, 2017 by counting
the stipulated maximum period of six
(3 of 3) [CW-12985/2020]
months from the date when the order of
cancellation was communicated.
Accordingly, the writ petitions are
disposed of as above."
In view of the above fact situation, the writ petition
filed by the petitioner is allowed in light of and with
similar directions as given in the case of Madan Lal
(supra).
The Additional Director, Mines and Geology
Department, Udaipur shall decide the appeal in
accordance with the directions herein-before.
(VIJAY BISHNOI),J
21-msrathore/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
