Omkar Stone Crusher vs The Director of Mines and Geology, Govt. of A.P. and Others

Bhaskar Rao, J.—This writ petition is filed assailing the order of the Director of Mines & Geology, Hyderabad dated 21-2-1993. The case of the petitioner is that he was granted quarry lease on 17-12-1991 over an extent of Ac.1-40 cents in S.No. 640/P of Nallapadu village, Guntur district. On 29-1-1993, he went to the office of the 3rd respondent to execute the lease deed and deposited the required seigneorage fee, cess, assessment etc. Then he was informed that his lease was already revoked on 13-4-92 on the ground that he failed to execute the lease deed within 90 days from the date of grant of lease or within such further period as the Director may allow in this behalf. The petitioner is not aware of this time limit. Immediately on 4-2-1993, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Director of Mines & Geology, Hyderabad, who rejected the appeal as it was not filed within 60 days from the date of the order revocation i.e., the appeal was not filed on or before 12-6-1992. Hence this writ petition.

The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the appeal has to be filed within 60 days from the date of communication as per Rule 35 of the A.P. Minor Mineral Concession Rules. In the present case, the order of revocation was not communicated to the petitioner. He came to know of the order of revocation only on 29-1-1993. Then he filed the appeal on 4-2-93. As the order of revocation was not communicated to the petitioner, the date of communication of the order of revocation shall be deemed to be 29-1-1993 on which date the petitioner came to know of the said order and then the appeal will be within the time prescribed. The appellate authority erred in rejecting the appeal as barred by limitation.

The learned Government Pleader on the other hand contends that the appellate authority has considered all the relevant facts and found that the appeal is barred by limitation and that there are no merits in the writ petition.

Rule 35 of the A.P. Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966 reads as follows:-

"35. Appeal :- An appeal against any order passed by the Assistant Director or Deputy Director under these rules shall lie to the Director within a period of two months from the date of communication of such order to the party aggrieved and an appeal against an order of the Director passed under Rule 26 shall be to the Government in like manner."

As per the above rule, the appeal has to be filed within two months from the date of communication of the order to the party aggrieved. In this case, nothing is placed before me by the respondents'' counsel to show that the order was communicated to the petitioner on a particular date. In the absence of any material on record to show that the order was communicated to the petitioner on a particular date, it cannot be said that the limitation starts from a particular date. As per Rule 35, the limitation starts from the date of communication. In the absence of proof of communication, the limitation starts from the date of knowledge of the order. Hence, in the present case, it has to be held that the limitation starts from 29-1-1993 on which date the petitioner knew of the order of revocation. Therefore, the appeal filed by the petitioner is well within time.

Accordingly, the impugned order is quashed and the appellate authority is directed to entertain the appeal and dispose it of on merits. The writ petition is allowed. No costs.