AWADH NARAIN NISHAD Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(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.

(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.