Kalulal Khatik vs State of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Mines Department and Others

Arun Bhansali, J

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved against rejection of his appeal as barred by limitation by the Additional Director (Mines),

Udaipur.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the issue raised in the writ petitions is squarely covered by the order passed by this Court in

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14920/2017: Madan Lal v. State of Rajasthan, decided on 11.05.2018, whereby the petitions filed by the petitioners were

allowed and the matters were remanded back and therefore, the present writ petition may also be decided in terms of the order passed in the case of

Madan Lal (supra).

Learned counsel for the respondents is not in a position to dispute that the issue raised in the present petitions is similar to the issue raised in the

case of Madan Lal (supra).

In the case of Madan Lal (supra), this Court after considering the issue raised, directed as under:â€

“In view of the above discussions, the impugned orders passed by the respondent No. 2 - Additional Director (Environment & Development),

Mines & Geology, Udaipur dismissing the appeals of the petitioners on the ground of limitation are set aside with the direction to the respondent No. 2

to decide the matter afresh after deciding the application for condonation of the limitation period as per Rule 63 of the Rajasthan Minor Mineral

Concession Rules, 2017 by counting the stipulated maximum period of six months from the date when the order of cancellation was communicated.

Accordingly, the writ petitions are disposed of as above.â€​

In view of the above fact situation, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is allowed in light of and with similar directions as given in the case of

Madan Lal (supra).