- (1.) THIS is appeal by the writ petitioner in WP No.273/2009.
(2.) BY the impugned order dated 14th January 2009, learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant, essentially on the ground of availability of a statutory remedy available to the writ-petitioner to challenge the impugned demand dated 19th September 2008 under provisions of rule 47 of the Rajasthan Minor Minerals Concession Rules 1986. It is this order, which is impugned by the writ-petitioner before this Court. This is what the learned Single Judge observed while dismissing the writ petition: "S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.273/2009 (M/s Punj Llyod Limited v. The State of Rajasthan and ors.) Date of order :: 14.01.2009 PRESENT HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GOPAL KRISHNA VYAS Mr Vishal Sharma, for the petitioner Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. By way of filing present writ petition, petitioner is challenging the demand notice dated 19 th September 2008 (Annexure-5) passed by the Mining Engineer, Mining and Geological Department, Ajmer. There is remedy available to the petitioner by way of filing revision under the provisions of section 47 of the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1986. In this view of the matter, due to availability of alternate remedy under section 47 of the Rules of 1986, I am not inclined to interfere in the matter under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Hence, this writ petition is dismissed." Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused record of the case including order dated 19th September 2008 impugned in the writ petition, we too are of the opinion that the remedy to the appellant (writ- petitioner) lie in filing a revision under rule 47 of the Rajasthan Minor Minerals Concession Rules 1986. It is for the reason that, firstly � the impugned demand was issued by Mining Engineer, secondly � it is in the nature of order/demand and thirdly � it purports to have been issued under the Rules of 1986. In the light of these three conditions, in our opinion, attributes of sec.47 of the Rules for filing Revision are satisfied and hence, the learned Single Judge was justified in not entertaining the writ petition, on the ground of availability of alternative remedy of filing Revision Petition before the State under rule 47 ibid. Accordingly and in the light of aforesaid discussion, though dismissing the appeal and upholding the impugned order, liberty is granted to the appellant to file Revision under rule 47 ibid before the State against the order/demand dated 19 th September 2008 and consequential order/demand if any, within a period of three weeks from today.
(3.) IN case the appellant files a Revision, as permitted, within the time provided, the State Government would decide the Revision Petition in accordance with law, on merits, within a period of six months from the date of presentation of the Revision. Till the disposal of the Revision, the interim order passed by this Court on 27th January 2009 shall continue. In case, if the appellant does not file Revision within three weeks as permitted then the stay granted on 27th January 2009 shall stand automatically vacated, entitling the respondents to give effect to the demand, which was impugned by the appellant in the writ petition. ;