DEO RAJ Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Arvind Srivastava learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Mukesh Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.4 and the learned standing counsel. Counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged, by consent of parties the writ petition is being finally decided.

(2.) By this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 15-12-2004 passed by the respondent No.1 by which preliminary objections raised against the maintainability of the revision were rejected. The delay in filing the revision by the respondent No.4 was condoned. Brief facts necessary for deciding the controversy raised in this writ petition are :

(3.) The petitioner was granted a mining lease under Chapter II of the U. P. Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules, 1963 (hereinafter referred to "1963 Rules") in the year 1997 for a period of three years. The renewal for a further period of three years was granted by the order dated 18-2-2000. Another application for renewal of the mining lease was given by the petitioner under rule 6A of 1963 Rules. The District Magistrate by an order dated 24-11-2003 renewed the lease in favour of the petitioner for a period of three years. A writ petition No. 20846 of 2004, Santosh Kumar Singh v. State of U. P. had been filed challenging the renewal of the lease dated 24-11 -2003 which writ petition is pending consideration. The respondent No.4 filed revision under Rule 78 of 1963 Rules before the State Government praying for setting aside the order of the District Magistrate renewing and registering the mining lease in favour of the petitioner. On the revision filed by the respondent No.4 notices were issued to the petitioner. The revision was filed by the petitioner on 4-6-2004. The petitioner appeared in the revision and raised objection regarding maintainability of the revision. Petitioner raised objections before the revisional authority that the revision is barred by time having not been filed within ninety days from the date of order of the District Magistrate, the same is liable to be dismissed as barred by time. Section 5 of the Limitation Act is not applicable while hearing the revision under Rule 78 and there being no power of condonation of delay, the revision was liable to be rejected. It was further contended that the petitioner has no locus standi to challenge the order of the District Magistrate renewing the lease in favour of the petitioner. The revision being not accompanied by any application for condonation of delay, the revisional authority could not have condoned the delay in filing the revision. There was no illegality in the renewal of mining lease of the petitioner. The revisional authority without applying its mind to the facts of the case illegally condoned the delay in filing the revision.