PRASHANT KUMAR BAIRWA Vs. UNION OF INDAIA

JUDGEMENT

(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.