[2026:RJ-JP:25114] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR (1) S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18849/2023 URN: CW / 37002U / 2023 Smt. Laxmi Devi W/o Sh. Subhash Dagar, R/o Alipur, Gurgram (Haryana) through his Power of Attorney Vedpal Sangwan S/o Danaram Sangwan, R/o Dohakadeena, Post Office Dohaka, Tehsil & District Charkhidadri (Haryana). ----Petitioner Versus 1. Additional Director, Mines (Environment & Development), Jaipur. 2. The Joint Secretary, Department of Mines, Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.) 3. The Assistant Mining Engineer, Neem Ka Thana District Neem Ka Thana. ----Respondents Connected With (2) S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18843/2023 URN: CW / 36989U / 2023 Smt. Laxmi Devi W/o Sh. Subhash Dagar, R/o Alipur, Gurgram (Haryana) through his Power of Attorney Vedpal Sangwan S/o Danaram Sangwan, R/o Dohakadeena, Post Office Dohaka, Tehsil & District Charkhidadri (Haryana). ----Petitioner Versus 1. Additional Director, Mines (Environment & Development), Jaipur. 2. The Joint Secretary, Department of Mines, Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.) 3. The Assistant Mining Engineer, Neem Ka Thana District Neem Ka Thana. ----Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. R.N. Mathur Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Prateek Mathur Advocate and Mr. Vikram Singh Advocate. [2026:RJ-JP:25114] (2 of 8) [CW-18849/2023] For Respondents : Mr. Rahul Lodha Additional Government Counsel. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA Judgment 03/07/2026 1. Although both these writ petitions are listed on second stay applications filed by the petitioner, however, learned counsel for the parties jointly submitted that the writ petitions may be decided at this stage itself. Since these writ petitions involve almost similar facts, grievance and cause of action, therefore, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, writ petitions are being decided by this common judgment. 2. The facts as stated in the writ petitions are that the petitioner was granted two mining leases for excavating minerals namely masonry stone at Village Dabla, Tehsil Neem Ka Thana, District Sikar. Tenure of the aforesaid mining leases was 20 years, however, later on, by virtue of Rule 9(2) of the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2017, the period of grant of each lease stood automatically extended for a period of 50 years, i.e. up to 16.03.2059. It is stated that by pointing out certain deficiencies, one notice for each mining lease was issued by the concerned Assistant Mining Engineer to the petitioner and on account of not rectifying the deficiencies, vide order dated 14.05.2018, the mining leases granted in favour of the petitioner were cancelled. Thereupon, possession of mining leases was also taken over vide possession report dated 08.06.2018. [2026:RJ-JP:25114] (3 of 8) [CW-18849/2023] 3. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner was not having knowledge of cancellation of lease deeds and only on submitting applications under the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005, the relevant documents were made available to her. Hence, only on getting the knowledge with regard to cancellation of mining leases, separate appeals were filed by the petitioner before the Additional Director, Mines, Jaipur (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the appellate authority’) on 03.08.2022. As there was delay in filing of the appeals, separate applications under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay in filing of the appeals were also filed by the petitioner along with the memos of appeals in which bona fide reasons, which prevented the petitioner from filing the appeals within the prescribed limitation period, were also mentioned. 4. Mr. R.N. Mathur, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that although the appellate authority was under a legal obligation to consider the applications for condonation of delay filed by the petitioner and to objectively examine the reasons assigned by the petitioner for condonation of delay, yet without even giving any reference whatsoever in respect of any such application for condonation of delay, appeals filed by the petitioner were dismissed by the appellate authority vide separate orders dated 14.10.2022 on the ground of being time barred. 5. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that aforesaid orders dated 14.10.2022 passed by the appellate authority were [2026:RJ-JP:25114] (4 of 8) [CW-18849/2023] challenged before the revisional authority by the petitioner on the ground that applications for condonation of delay were not considered by the appellate authority, yet without appreciating the issue of non-consideration of the applications for condonation of delay filed by the petitioner, the revisional authority has assigned its own reasons so as to support the decision rendered by the appellate authority and thereby, even the revisional authority has not exercised its jurisdiction properly. 6. Learned Senior Counsel relied upon order dated 24.07.2025 passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in batch of writ petitions led by S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10599/2025 titled as Jamil Ahmed vs. State of Rajasthan & Others so as to support his contention that the appellate authority was required to consider the reasons assigned in the applications under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and such non- consideration would vitiate the appellate proceedings and in the aforesaid case, the order passed by the appellate authority therein was quashed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court only on this ground. 7. Writ petitions were opposed by learned Additional Government Counsel appearing for the respondent-department, who submitted that although initially, notices before cancelling the mining leases were served upon the petitioner, yet no reply thereon was filed, therefore, no other alternative was available except to cancel the mining leases of the petitioner. It is submitted that the applications filed by the petitioner seeking condonation of [2026:RJ-JP:25114] (5 of 8) [CW-18849/2023] delay along with memos of appeals were totally vague and no specific or justified reasons were assigned so as to support the contention of the petitioner that she was prevented by sufficient cause from filing appeals within limitation on account of reasons beyond her control. 8. Learned Additional Government Counsel although did not dispute that the appellate authority has not even considered applications under Section 5 of the Limitation Act filed by the petitioner along with memos of appeals, yet he submitted that such applications have been considered by the revisional authority which is admittedly higher authority than the appellate authority. Therefore, ground of non-consideration of applications for condonation of delay as raised by the petitioner is not sustainable in view of the findings recorded by the revisionsal authority. 9. Learned Additional Government Counsel submitted that admittedly, appeals were filed by the petitioner beyond the statutory limitation period, therefore, she has got no right to assail the orders of cancellation of mining leases which has further been affirmed by the appellate authority as well as the revisional authority. 10. This Court has meticulously considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the material available on record of the both the writ petitions. 11. It is not a matter of dispute that separate appeals against cancellation of mining leases were filed by the petitioner with delay. Similarly, it is also not disputed that the memos of [2026:RJ-JP:25114] (6 of 8) [CW-18849/2023] appeal were supported by separate application seeking condonation of delay in filing of the appeal. As the appellate authority did not even examine the merits of the case and the appeals have been dismissed vide separate orders dated 14.10.2022 only on account of appeals being time barred, it was incumbent upon the appellate authority to consider the applications under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and to discuss the reasons on which the petitioner was relying for justifying the delay. 12. Admittedly, there is not even a whisper in the entire orders dated 14.10.2022 in respect of any application for condonation of delay filed by the petitioner. Under these circumstances, where the reasons assigned by the petitioner have not even been taken into consideration or discussed by the appellate authority, this Court finds that the appellate authority committed serious error of law and jurisdiction while deciding the appeals vide separate orders dated 14.10.2022 without considering applications for condonation of delay. 13. Contention advanced by learned Additional Government Counsel appearing for the respondents that reasons assigned by the petitioner for filing appeals with delay have been considered by the revisional authority, does not have any merit and the same is not convincing for the reason that the revisional authority is bound to examine the order passed by the lower authority confining its scope to any jurisdictional error committed by lower authority. Non-consideration of applications for condonation of [2026:RJ-JP:25114] (7 of 8) [CW-18849/2023] delay by the appellate authority, is apparently a jurisdictional error which has crept in orders dated 14.10.2022 passed by the appellate authority. Such error or deficiency in the orders passed by the appellate authority cannot be rectified by the revisional authority by considering applications for condonation of delay which ought to have been considered by the appellate authority. In this case, the appellate authority has utterly failed to exercise its jurisdiction as vested in it under the law. Therefore, this Court finds that orders dated 14.10.2022 passed by the appellate authority in each appeal filed by the peitioner and orders dated 06.09.2023 passed by the revisional authority in each revision petition filed by the petitioner are not sustainable in the eyes of law. 14. The aforesaid view taken by this Court is duly supported by the following observations made by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Jamil Ahmed (supra): “It is the duty of the Appellate Authority to decide the appeals by passing a reasoned and speaking order and taking into account, the grounds taken in the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and the grounds mentioned in the memo of appeal, but herein the instant case, the grounds taken by the petitioner under Section 5 application have not been taken into account and the appeals have been treated as time barred. 14. In the considered opinion of this Court, the Appellate Authority was expected to take into account the grounds taken by the petitioner in the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and then only the appeal should decide, however, in the instant case, without considering the grounds taken in Section 5 Application, the appeal has been rejected.” 15. In view of foregoing reasons as also in the opinion of this Court, writ petitions filed by the petitioner deserve to be allowed and the same are hereby allowed. Consequently, orders dated 14.10.2022 passed by the appellate authority and orders [2026:RJ-JP:25114] (8 of 8) [CW-18849/2023] dated 06.09.2023 passed by the revisional authority are hereby quashed and set aside. Matters are remanded back to the appellate authority with direciton to reconsider the memos of appeal along with applications under Section 5 of the Limitation Act filed by the petitioner seeking condonation of delay in filing of the appeals. The appeals shall be decided by the appellate authority by passing a reasoned and speaking order. 16. It is made clear that any observations made in this judgment shall not influence the appellate authority and it shall decide the appeals afresh expeditiously strictly in accordance with law and preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment. 17. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. 18. Office is directed to place a copy of this judgment on record of connect writ petition. (ANAND SHARMA),J MANOJ NARWANI/76-77/