Jitendra Kumar Nagauri vs State Of Rajasthan
2022 Latest Caselaw 114 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1723/2021

Jitendra Kumar Nagauri S/o Shri Jatan Singh Nagauri, Aged About 55 Years, Resident Of Nai Aabadi, Mandalgarh, Tehsil Mandalgarh, District Chittorgarh.

----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. The Mining Engineer, Department Of Mines And Geology, Chittorgarh.

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vishal Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. DS Jasol

JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

Order

04/01/2022

1. Mr. Vishal Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner

submits that the issue involved in the present writ petition

is squarely covered by decision dated 15.11.2021, passed

by this Court in case of Mohan Ram vs. State of

Rajasthan & Ors. (SBCWP No.9092/2021).

2. Mr. DS Jasol, learned counsel appearing for the

respondent- State is not in a position to dispute the

aforesaid position of facts and law.

3. In the case of Mohan Ram (supra), this Court has

held as under:-

(2 of 3) [CW-1723/2021]

"13. In the opinion of this Court, the statutory provisions so also judgment of this Court rendered in the case of Madan Lal vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. in SBCWP No.14920/2017, clearly provides that the Appellate Authority is required to reckon the Limitation period from the date of communication of the impugned order.

14. This being the position, writ petition is allowed. Impugned order dated 16.04.2021, is hereby quashed and set aside.

15. The Appellate Authority is directed to firstly count the delay while clearly giving a finding about the date of communication of the order.

16. For the purpose aforesaid, before deciding condonation application, the Appellate Authority will be required to either call for the requisite record from the authority concerned or shall take a categorical affidavit in relation to service of the order.

17. On ascertaining the date of communication, the Appellate Authority shall reckon the period of six months, being maximum period of delay which can be condoned in terms of the proviso 2 of sub Rule 4 of Rule 63 of the Rules of 2017.

18. This Court often finds that in the application under Rule 63 (4) of the Rules of 2017, it is assertion of the mining lease holder or the appellant that the order impugned was not served upon them. In order to deal with such situation, it is hereby directed that the Appellate Authority while deciding the appeal was required affidavit of the Mining Engineer."

(3 of 3) [CW-1723/2021]

4. The present writ petition also stands disposed of

in terms of the judgment passed in case of Mohan

Ram (supra).

5. The impugned order passed by the Appellate

Authority dated 03.12.2020, is hereby quashed and set

aside. The matter is remitted back to the Appellate

Authority to decide the appeal in light of the law laid

down in Mohan Ram's case.

6. Stay application also stands disposed of

accordingly.

(DINESH MEHTA),J

131-pooja/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)