Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Bhagirathram vs The State Of Rajasthan ... on 6 February, 2025
Author: Vinit Kumar Mathur
Bench: Vinit Kumar Mathur
[2025:RJ-JD:7687]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2598/2025
Bhagirathram S/o Ramkishan Ji Jat, Aged About 48 Years, R/o
Narsingh Vihar Lal Sagar District Jodhpur
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary,
Department Of Mines And Geology, Government Of
Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. The Director, Mines And Geology Department Khanij
Bhawan, Udaipur.
3. The Additional Director Mines, Mines And Geology
Department, Jodhpur.
4. S.m.e, Mines And Geology Department, Jodhpur.
5. Mining Engineer, Mines And Geology Department,
Jodhpur.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Arvind Vyas
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR
Order
06/02/2025
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
controversy involved in the present writ petition is squarely
covered by a judgment rendered by this Court in S.B. Civil Writ
Petition No.136/2022 (Khivsingh vs. State of Rajasthan &
Ors.), decided on 11.12.2024 in the following terms :-
"This writ petition has been filed by the
petitioner aggrieved of the order dated 30.09.2020
(Annex.2) whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner
has been dismissed as barred by limitation.
Learned counsel for the petitioner made
submissions that the appeal filed by the petitioner
[2025:RJ-JD:7687] (2 of 3) [CW-2598/2025]
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.
Learned counsel for the respondents made
submissions that the plea sought to be raised by the
petitioner stands answered from the annexure(s)
filed with the reply and, therefore, the writ petition
deserves dismissal.
I have considered the submissions made by the
counsel for the parties and have perused the material
available on record.
By order impugned dated 30.09.2020, 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:
"pw¡fd mDr vihy lgk;d [kfu vfHk;ark] ckyslj ds
vkns'k fnukad 14-05-2013 bl U;k;ky; esa fnukad 04-11-
2019 dks 6 ekg ls vf/kd le; O;rhr gksus ds i'pkr izLrqr dh
gS] tks xzkº; ugha gksus ls fu;e 63 ¼4½ ds varxZr vLohd`r
dh tkrh gSA"
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.
[2025:RJ-JD:7687] (3 of 3) [CW-2598/2025]
In that view of the matter, the order dated
30.09.2020 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
16.01.2025 in the first instance.
With the above directions, the writ petition
stands disposed of".
In view of the above submission made by learned counsel for
the petitioner, the present writ petition is disposed of in terms of
judgment rendered in case of Khivsingh(supra).
(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J
348-AnilSingh/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
