Single judge order dismissing petitioner's writ petition by following the judgment in Mohan Ram, quashing impugned appellate order dated 03.12.2020 and remitting the matter for fresh consideration.
Impugned order dated 03.12.2020 quashed and set aside; matter remitted to Appellate Authority to decide the appeal.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1723/2021
Jitendra Kumar Nagauri S/o Shri Jatan Singh Nagauri, Aged About 55 Years, Resident Of Nai Aabadi, Mandalgarh, Tehsil Mandalgarh, District Chittorgarh.
----Petitioner
Versus
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vishal Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. DS Jasol
JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA
Order
04/01/2022
held as under:-
(2 of 3)
[CW-1723/2021]
“ 13. In the opinion of this Court, the statutory provisions so also judgment of this Court rendered in the case of Madan Lal vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. in SBCWP No.14920/2017, clearly provides that the Appellate Authority is required to reckon the Limitation period from the date of communication of the impugned order.
14. This being the position, writ petition is allowed. Impugned order dated 16.04.2021, is hereby quashed and set aside. 15. The Appellate Authority is directed to firstly count the delay while clearly giving a finding about the date of communication of the order.
16. For the purpose aforesaid, before deciding condonation application, the Appellate Authority will be required to either call for the requisite record from the authority concerned or shall take a categorical affidavit in relation to service of the order.
17. On ascertaining the date of communication, the Appellate Authority shall reckon the period of six months, being maximum period of delay which can be condoned in terms of the proviso 2 of sub Rule 4 of Rule 63 of the Rules of 2017.
18. This Court often finds that in the application under Rule 63 (4) of the Rules of 2017, it is assertion of the mining lease holder or the appellant that the order impugned was not served upon them. In order to deal with such situation, it is hereby directed that the Appellate Authority while deciding the appeal was required affidavit of the Mining Engineer.”
(3 of 3)
[CW-1723/2021]
down in Mohan Ram’s case.
accordingly.
(DINESH MEHTA),J
131-pooja/-
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the present writ petition should be disposed of in the light of the judgment in Mohan Ram case.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Mohan Ram vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.Followed¶14
Mohan Ram vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (SBCWP No.9092/2021)
Madan Lal vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.Followed¶20
Madan Lal vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. in SBCWP No.14920/2017
Jitendra Kumar Nagauri
State Of Rajasthan
Dinesh Mehta
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
