Gopal Krishan Vyas, J. - (1.) INSTANT writ petition has been filed by the petitioner to quash the order dt. 28.04.1995 (Annex. -3) passed by the Assistant Mining Engineer, Dungarpur, order dt. 02.01.1996 (Annex. -7) passed by the Deputy Secretary, Mines, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur rejecting the revision petition only on the ground of delay as well as orders dt. 09.08.2004 (Annex. -13) and 12.04.2006 (Annex. -20) communicated by letter dt. 24.11.2007 rejecting the consideration of the petitioner under Rule 65 may be quashed and set aside. Further, it is prayed that the respondents may be directed to consider the application of the petitioner for grant of lease without being affected by clause 9 of the Marble Policy, 1994 in view of the guidelines laid down by the Directorate dt. 24.10.1994 and, in the alternative, it is prayed that the Deputy Secretary, Mines, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur may be directed to consider and decide the revision petition on merit after providing opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. As per facts of the case, the petitioner applied for grant of mining lease ML No. 604/91 for the mineral serpentine near village Rohanwara Tehsil and District Dungarpur. Alongwith application, map and other required documents as per the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules 1986 were furnished in the office of the Assistant Mining Engineer, Dungarpur on 27.08.1991. The petitioner's application was kept pending for unlimited time, therefore, the petitioner preferred a revision petition against the deemed refusal before the revisional authority by way of filing revision petition No. 717/1992. The revisional authority did not find any valid reason to sit over the application, therefore, passed an order on 14.10.1992 whereby the deemed refusal was set aside and direction was issued to the Assistant Mining Engineer, Dungarpur to dispose of the application of the petitioner within 100 days from the date of the order on merit.
(2.) AFTER the judgment, the petitioner deposited demarcation fee on 23.08.1994 and technical staff of the respondent No. 3 conducted demarcation on 25.08.1994 and, thereafter, vide communication dt. 31.08.1994 the respondent Department sent a communication to the District Collector, Dungarpur with a request for revenue NOC. The District Collector issued NOC on 06.02.1995 but the Deputy Conservator of Forest did not issue the NOC, therefore, respondent No. 3 rejected the application filed by the petitioner vide order dt. 28.04.1995 on the ground that the petitioner has failed to produce the NOC and with effect from 06.10.1994 new Marble Policy has come into force according to which pending applications are required to be rejected. In the writ petition, it is stated by the petitioner that the application of the petitioner was not decided within 100 days from 14.10.1992 as ordered by the revisional authority vide order dt. 14.10.1992 and, in the meantime, new Marble Policy 1994 came into force with effect from 6.10.1994 and when notification was issued in exercise of the powers conferred on the State by Rule 65 of the Rules of 1986 the application of the petitioner was rejected while applying Rule 9 of the said policy. The petitioner being aggrieved by order dt. 28.04.1995 preferred revision petition before respondent No. 2 but the respondent No. 2 without going into the merit of the case dismissed the revision petition solely on the ground of limitation vide order dt. 02.01.1996. Being aggrieved by order dt. 02.01.1996, the petitioner preferred review petition before respondent No. 2.
(3.) IN the review petition, the petitioner filed medical certificate for condonation of delay but respondent No. 2 did not decide the review petition inspite of application submitted by the petitioner to decide the review petition.;