Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Rajasthan · body

2025 DAILYLAW 17786 (RAJ)

MADHU BAIRAGI D/O MOHANDAS BAIRAGI v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

CW/7098/2025 · 2025-07-31

Avneesh Jhingan

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

[2025:RJ-JP:29333] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7098/2025 Madhu Bairagi D/o Mohandas Bairagi, Aged About 42 Years, R/o Village Dabi, Tehsil Taleda, District Bundi. ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary, Department Of Mines And Geology, Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur. 2. Additional Director (Mines), Department Of Mines And Geology, Kota Zone, Kota (Raj). 3. Superintending Mining Engineer, Kota Circle, Kota, Department Of Mines And Geology, Kota. 4. Mining Engineer, Mines And Geology Department, Division-Ii Bundi (Raj.) ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Zaid Khan for Mr. Zakir Hussain For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rahul Lodha, AGC HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN Order 31/07/2025 1. This petition is filed challenging order dated 21.03.2025 dismissing the appeal of the petitioner as time barred. 2. The short controversy involved in the present petition is as to whether under Rule 63 of Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2017 the period of limitation for filing an appeal shall commence from the date of the order or date of its communication. 3. Learned counsel for the parties are at ad idem that the issue involved in the present petition is squarely covered by decision of [2025:RJ-JP:29333] (2 of 3) [CW-7098/2025] this Court in SBCWP No.1595/2023 (Abdul Kalam Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.) decided on 28.11.2023, wherein it was held that the limitation for filing an appeal shall commence from the date of the communication. The operational part of the order dated 28.11.2023 is reproduced below:- “5. Rule 63 of the Rules, 2017 is reproduced below: “Appeal-(1) Any person aggrieved by any order of the Superintending Mining Engineer, Superintending Mining Engineer (Vigilance), Mining Engineer, Mining Engineer (Vigilance), Assistant Mining Engineer or Assistant Mining Engineer (Vigilance) passed under these rules shall have the right of appeal to the Additional Director Mines authorized by the government. (2) Any person aggrieved by any order passed in appeal under sub-rule (1) or any other passed by the Director or Additional Director Mines under these rules shall have the right of appeal to the government. (3) Every appeal shall be made in Form-29 in duplicate and shall be accompanied by a fee of rupees five thousand. (4) An appeal shall be filed within three months of the date of communication of the order appealed against: Provided that an appeal may be admitted after the said period if the appellate authority is satisfied that the appellant has sufficient cause for not filing the appeal within the said period but the appeal shall not be admitted after expiry of six month from the date of order appealed against.” 6. As per Rule 63(4) of the Rules, 2017, the appeal is to be filed within three months of the date of communication of the order appealed against. The proviso to the Rule 63(4) empowers the Appellate Authority to admit the appeal till six months from the order appealed against, on being satisfied that there was a sufficient cause for not filing the appeal within the period of limitation. 7. From the Appellate order, it is evident that the Appellate Authority has not even considered as to when the order appealed against was communicated to the petitioner. The date of receipt of order was fundamental for calculating limitation, as per Rule [2025:RJ-JP:29333] (3 of 3) [CW-7098/2025] 63(4). The limitation starts from communication of the order. The Appellate Authority held the appeal to be time barred by considering the limitation from date of the order rather than from the date of communication of the order. 8. Consequently, the order is set aside and the matter is remitted back to Appellate authority to decide the application for condonation of delay afresh after giving opportunity of hearing to the parties.” 4. In view of the above, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remitted to the appellate authority to decide the application afresh after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 5. The petition is allowed. (AVNEESH JHINGAN),J Chandan/167