LILADHAR BIYANI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is barred by limitation from 173 days. An application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act has been filed with submission that the appellant failed to contact his counsel due to some ailment. The fact stated is not supported by any evidence, such as medical certificate or even prescription, to establish that he was undergoing medical treatment. As a matter of fact, no sufficient explanation is given by the appellant for causing such huge delay in filing the appeal.

(2.) WE also looked into prima facie merits of the case. A lease was granted to the petitioner -appellant in the year 1975 for mining soap stone. The lease came to be expired in the year 1995. An application for renewal of the same, as per the petitioner -appellant, was filed and in the year 2004, the lease was cancelled on the count that the appellant failed to satisfy necessary requisites required for renewal of soap stone mines as well as for excavation of major mineral copper. Suffice to mention that a consent was sought from the petitioner -appellant for excavation of copper also by the respondent Mining Department. Being aggrieved by non -renewal of the mining lease, the petitioner -appellant approached the revisional authority by way of filing a revision petition as per the provisions of Section 30 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 and that came to be accepted by the judgment dated 04.10.1997. The revisional authority while setting aside the order passed by the State Government remanded the case back for giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner -appellant not later than 90 days from the date of issue of the order by the revisional authority. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the Union of India, the State Government preferred a petition for writ before this court and that came to be accepted by the judgment dated 23.07.2004 by directing the revisional authority to consider the matter afresh and to pass a speaking and reasoned order. The revisional authority dismissed the revision petition vide order dated 03.08.2007. Hence, the petitioner -appellant approached this court by way of filing a petition for writ, that came to be dismissed by the order impugned dated 17.04.2012. To challenge the order aforesaid, this appeal is preferred.

(3.) WE do not find any merit in the argument advanced. As a matter of fact, the mining lease relating to mineral soap stone came to be expired in the year 1995 and subsequent thereto, in the year 2000, a ban was imposed for such mining in the tribal sub -plan area, as such, there was no occasion even for making renewal of the mining lease relating to soap stone. In such circumstances, we are of the view that no relief as claimed for could have been given and therefore, learned Single Judge rightly dismissed the writ petition. Accordingly, the application preferred under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and the appeal are dismissed.