- (1.) THIS writ petition has been filed challenging the letter dated 22-5-2007, addressed by the Section Officer, Mines Department, Government of India informing the petitioner that his revision petition, under Rule 54 of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 (herein after `1960 Rules') filed against the order dated 5-9-2005, under the covering letter dated 17-6-2006 has been found beyond the prescribed period of limitation and having been without any application for condonation of delay has been dismissed. The letter records that the State Government had informed the Revising Authority that the order dated 5-9-2005 had been despatched to the petitioner by registered post and was received by the petitioner on 12-9-2005. In this view of the matter the revision petition was dismissed being beyond the period of limitation.
(2.) COUNSEL for the petitioner submits that the letter dated 22-5-2007 issued by the Section Officer, Mines Department is unsustainable in law, inasmuch as even if the revision petition were to be dismissed on the ground of limitation, it should have been so decided by the Revising Authority itself and not by the Section Officer, Mines Department. It has been further submitted that in any event of the matter, it was his specific case in the revision that the petition under Rule 54 of 1960 Rules had been filed within ninety days of the communication of the order dated 5-9-2005. COUNSEL further submits that the question of the alleged receipt of order dated 5-9-2005 on 12-9-2005 as alleged is a question of fact, and could not have been conclusively determined in terms of purported letter of the State Government allegedly informing the Revising Authority that the order dated 5-9-2005 had been communicated to the petitioner by registered post on 12-9-2005 without allowing the petitioner an opportunity to controvert it. COUNSEL further submits that even the presumption under Section 27 of General Clauses Act is a rebutable presumption and in terms of facts pleaded in the revision petition and arguments made thereon, the petitioner would have been able to discharge such a burden rebuttal of the presumption. He submits that the writ petition therefore deserves to be allowed both on the ground of denial of natural justice and the rejection of the revision by a Section Officer and not by the Revising Authority. Counsel for respondents submit that the letter dated 22-5-2007 is merely a communication sent by the Section Officer of the factum of dismissal of revision petition, and is not per se a rejection of revision petition by the Section Officer himself. It has been further submitted that even otherwise in view of letter of State Government that the order dated 5-9-2005 was communicated to the petitioner through registered post and the same was received by the petitioner on 12-9-2005, it was plain that the revision petition filed on 17-6-2006 was beyond the period of limitation, as provided in Rule 54 of the 1960 Rules, and no application for condonation of delay having accompanied the revision petition, the revision petition as laid was thus not maintainable. Counsel would thus submit that the revision petition be dismissed. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, and perused the material available on record of the writ petition, I proceed to adjudicate this petition. I find no substance in the submission of counsel for respondents that the letter dated 22-5-2007 is mere a communication of the order of rejection of revision petition under Rule 54 of 1960 Rules. No such order of rejection passed by the Revising Authority has been filed with the reply. The power to accept or reject a revision petition is conferred in Central Government i.e. the Revising Authority, and the Section Officer, Mines Department is not the Revising Authority and thus had no authority to reject the same. Further, in any event of the matter, the question as to whether the revision petition was filed within the period of ninety days from the date of communication of the order dated 5-9-2005, would be a question of fact/ issue to be determined by the Revising Authority after perusing the revision petition and hearing the counsel for the petitioner. Further the presumption under Section 27 of the General Clauses Act is rebutable presumption and the petitioner should have been provided an opportunity to establish that the order dated 5-9-2005 was not received by him on 12-9-2005 as alleged by the State Government. This opportunity was denied to the petitioner. Consequently, the letter dated 22-5-2007 deserves to be quashed and set aside, and the revision petition filed under Rule 54 of the 1960 Rules against the order dated 5-9-2005, passed by the State Government deserves to be addressed by the Revising Authority in accordance with facts on record and law and the petitioner be given opportunity of hearing on all aspects of the matter including as to whether the revision petition has been filed within the period of limitation, computed, as required, from the date of communication of the order of rejection of the petitioner's application for mining lease. The petitioner shall produce the copy of this order before the Revising Authority, where upon the Revising Authority shall communicate in writing to the petitioner, the date of hearing of revision petition and shall thereafter decide the same by a reasoned and speaking order within a period of three months from the date of service of notice on the petitioner. 7. The writ petition stands allowed accordingly. ;