- (1.) RAJIV Sharma, J. Heard Sri Ashok Kumar Verma for the petitioner, Sri N. C. Mehrotra, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel, for the respondents No. 1 and 2 and Sri Pradeep Kumar Singh for respondent No. 3.
(2.) BY means of the instant writ peti tion, the petitioner is challenging the order dated 6. 11. 2007 passed by the Secretary, Geology & Mining, (Revisional Authority) in revision No. 51 of 2007 by which the de lay in preferring revision has been con doned giving benefit of section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 revision. The im pugned order has been challenged primar ily on the grounds that there is no provi sion in the U. P. Minor Mineral (Concession) Rules, 1963 regarding appli cability of the Indian Limitation Act and as such Revisional Authority has committed manifest error of law in applying the pro vision of Limitation" Act; when it is an admitted fact that the revision was filed beyond the prescribed period of 90, days the revision cannot be treated to be within limitation; and that while disposing the application for the condonation of delay, the objections raised by the petitioner were neither considered nor have been dealt with in the impugned order. It is submitted by the petitioner's Counsel that vide order dated 7. 2. 20071 mining lease in respect of plot No. 1049 of village Manjha, District Faizabad was sanctioned in favour of the petitioner through the order dated 7. 2. 2007 by the District Magistrate Faizabad. A writ peti tion No. 911 (MB) of 2007 was filed by one Om Prakash challenging the grant of min ing lease in favour of the petitioner but a Division Bench of this Court dismissed the same on the ground of availability of alternative remedy. On 6. 9. 2007, said Om Prakash preferred a revision before the State Government alongwith an application for condonation of delay in filing the revision to which objections were filed by the petitioner mentioning therein that as the limitation for filing the revision is ninety days but the same has been preferred after expiry of the said period and as such in view of the proposition of law laid down in Deo Ram v. State of U. P. and others, the delay cannot be condoned. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further submits that revisional authority is not a Court. In support of the aforesaid submission, he has relied upon the judg ment of this Court at Allahabad rendered in Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petition No. 1255 of 2005 Deo Raj v. State of U. P. and oth ers decided on 3. 3. 2005, wherein this Court, while dealing with the provisions of Rule 78 of U. P. Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules, 1963 has specifically held that:- "the State Government while hearing a revision under Rule 78 cannot be held a Court nor it can be said that it has trappings of the Court while deciding a revision. In this view of the matter section 5 of the Limita tion Act was not applicable ipso facto unless the Limitation Act or any provisions of the Limitation Act is specifically applied. To the contrary under the rules there are provisions in which power to condone the delay in making an appli cation has been specifically pro vided. As noted above, Rule 6-A (2) specifically empowers the State v Government to condone the delay in making application for renewal of the mining lease after the period specified under sub-rule (1 ). No such provisions have been made under Rule 78 on which it can be safely inferred that the State Legis lature intend applicability of sec tion 5 of the Limitation Act under Rule 78 of the Rules. "
(3.) REFUTING the submission advanced by learned Counsel for the petitioner, Sri N. C. Mehrotra, learned Counsel for the State, submits that the Apex Court in the case of Beg Raj Singh v. State of U. P. and oth ers, (2003) 1 SCC 726 has condoned the delay one and a half year on the ground of equity and he em phasizes that revisional authority has ob tain power to condone the delay on the ground of equity. It is not necessary that the provisions of the Limitation Act are to be applied and as such, the delay has rightly been condoned but the provisions have wrongly mentioned by the revisional authority while entertaining the revision. Sri Pradeep Kumar Singh, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 3, supports the arguments advanced by Sri N. C. Mehrotra and did not argue the matter any further.;