[2025:RJ-JP:15620] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15117/2024 Kailash Chand Jain S/o Shri Phool Chand Jain, aged about 51 Years, Resident of Kutti Mohalla, Tehsil Kaaman, District Bharatpur (Raj.). ----Petitioner Versus 1. State of Rajasthan, Through Additional Chief Secretary, Department of Mines and Petroleum, Government of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.). 2. Additional Director (Mines), Department of Mines and Geology, Kota Zone, Kota (Raj.). 3. Mining Engineer, Department of Mines and Geology, Bharatpur (Raj.). ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Anurag Sharma Mr. Harsh Sharma Mr. Anoop Meena For Respondent(s) : JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 08/04/2025 1. Aggrieved by the order dated 12.07.2024 passed by the Additional Director (Mines), the instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner before this Court. 2. By passing the impugned order, the Additional Director (Mines) has rejected the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the impugned order dated 08.08.2023 passed by the Mining Engineer and aggrieved by the aforesaid order, a statutory appeal under Rules 63 and 65 of the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2017 (for short, ‘the Rules of 2017’) was preferred by the [2025:RJ-JP:15620] (2 of 3) [CW-15117/2024] petitioner on 31.01.2024 along with an application under Section 5 read with Sections 63 (4) of the Rules of 2017 for condoning the delay in filing the appeal. 3. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the reasons of delay was the illness of the petitioner and inspite of such factual aspect of the matter, the medical certificates were also submitted on record but without considering the same, the impugned order has been passed, hence, under these circumstances, interference of this Court is warranted. 4. Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar and perused the material available on record. 5. Perusal of the documents annexed with the writ petition along with memo of appeal and the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act reveal that the petitioner is unwell and in support of his contentions, the medical certificate was enclosed, which were overlooked by the Appellate Authority and the appeal of the petitioner has been decided not on merits but was dismissed on technical ground of limitation. 6. In the considered opinion of this Court, the reason assigned for delay by the petitioner for approaching the Appellate Authority is well explained in the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The Appellate Authority was supposed to decide the appeal on its merit instead of rejecting the same on technical count of limitation. 7. In view of the above, the impugned order dated 12.07.2024 stands quashed and set aside and the matter is remitted to the Appellate Authority for its fresh adjudication, after providing the opportunity of hearing to the respective parties within a period of [2025:RJ-JP:15620] (3 of 3) [CW-15117/2024] three months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. 8. It is made clear that this Court has not issued any order or direction to the respondents to decide the appeal of the petitioner in a particular way, the respondents would be at liberty to decide the same, strictly in accordance with law. 9. The petitioner would be at liberty to file stay application and argue on the stay application before the Appellate Authority. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Ashu/12