DAG MINERALS Vs. DIRECTOR OF MINING AND GEOLOGY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In these three writ applications under Art.226 of the Constitution, petitioners have sought for quashing of the order dated 10-1-1991 (Annexure-1) of opposite party No. 1 by issue of writs in the nature of certiorari. As the points involved in all the three writ applications are the same, parties are the same and Annexure-1 is a common order, these three writ applications are heard together and are disposed of by this judgment.

(2.) Petitioner No. 1 is a firm and petitioner No. 2 is a partner thereof. Opposite party No. 4 is a new firm constituted by partners as described in cause title. These two are also partners of the petitioners firm. Petitioner No. 1 applied for granting quarry leases under R.6 of the Orissa Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1983 (hereinafter called 'the Rules') on 27-6-1989. No order in respect of the application was communicated to the petitioners for more than three months. Treating the same to be refusal under Rule 8, petitioners preferred appeals under Rule 29 on 6-12-1989. Opposite Party No. 1 dismissed the appeals as barred by limitation. Petitioners preferred revision before opposite party No. 2 which have been dismissed on 26-2-91 by order (Annexure-2). Aggrieved by the same, petitioners have preferred these three writ applications.

(3.) In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of opposite party No. 4, it has been disclosed that petitioner No. 2 has filed a suit in the court of Subordinate Judge, Sambalpur registered as Title Suit No. 155 of 1989 where he has sought the relief of appointing an arbitrator to decide whether lease granted to opposite party No. 4 is the lease to petitioner No. 2, to declare the leases in favour of opposite party No. 4 to be illegal and to direct for grant the same in favour of petitioner No. 1, for dissolution of petitioner No. 1 firm and for rendition of its accounts and to indemnify the loss of petitioner No. 1 by partners of opposite party No. 4 amongst other reliefs. In view of the suit, it is submitted that lease having been granted in favour of opposite party No. 4 to knowledge of petitioners and no appeal having been filed against such grant of lease, relief sought for in the appeal by petitioners cannot be granted and as such whether appeals are barred by limitation is academic. Added to it, it submitted that opp. party No. 1 has rightly dismissed the appeals as barred by limitation. In these writ applications, question to be examined is whether appeals filed by petitioners are barred by limitation. We need not examine the maintainability of the appeals at this stage since the appellate authority has not considered the same in right perspective and petitioners have opportunity to prefer appeals against lease in favour of opposite party No. 4 if so advised by applying for condonation of delay.