Gaurav Tomar vs State of M.P.

They are heard.

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order Annexure P/1 dated 23/5/2013. By the aforesaid order, the appellate authority dismissed the appeal of the petitioner on the ground of delay.

Petitioner filed an appeal against the order dated 1/4/2011 passed by the Collector, Shivpuri under the provisions of MP Minor Minerals Rules, 1996 (for brevity, "1996 Rules"). The appeal was filed under Rule 57(2) of the 1996 Rules. Rule 59 provides for limitation for filing appeal which reads thus:

"59. Limitation of Appeal, Review or Revision.- No appeal revision or review under these rules shall be entertained after sixty days of the date of communication of the order.

Provided that any such appeal, revision or review may be entertained by an appellate or review authority after the said period, if the appellant satisfies him that he has sufficient cause for not making the application within time."

In the aforesaid rule, it is mentioned that the limitation shall be counted from the date of communication of the order.

In the present case, the petitioner did not plead the fact as to when the order was communicated to him. The appellate authority has held that the appeal was filed beyond the period of sixty days from the date of passing of the order, hence, it was barred by near about two years.

In our opinion, this finding is not correct because the appeal is filed in accordance with Rule 59 of the 1996 Rules within sixty days from the date of communication of the order. Unfortunately, the fact as to when the order under appeal was communicated to the petitioner has neither been pleaded in the present writ petition nor before the appellate authority.

Hon''ble the Supreme Court in S. Ganesharaju (D) Thr. L.Rs. and Another Vs. Narasamma (D) Thr. L.Rs. and Others, has held as under in regard to power which could be exercised by the Court in condoning the delay:

"We are aware of the fact that refusal to condone delay would result in foreclosing the suitor from putting forth his cause. There is no presumption that delay in approaching the court is always deliberate. In fact, it is always just, fair and appropriate that matters should be heard on merits rather than shutting the doors of justice at the threshold. Since sufficient cause has not been defined, thus, the courts are left to exercise a discretion to come to the conclusion whether circumstances exist establishing sufficient cause. The only guiding principle to be seen is whether a party has acted with reasonable diligence and had not been negligent and callous in the prosecution of the matter. In the instant case, we find that the appellants have shown sufficient cause seeking condonation of delay and the same has been explained satisfactorily."

Looking to the facts and nature of the case, it would be just and proper to condone the delay and to impose costs on the petitioner for filing the appeal belatedly.

In this view of the matter, this writ petition is disposed of with the following directions:

(I) Impugned order dated 23/5/2013 passed by the appellate authority (Annexure P/1) is hereby quashed.

(II) Delay in filing the appeal is hereby condoned subject to depositing costs of Rs. 10,000/- (Rs. Ten Thousand) by the petitioner.

(III) On fulfilling the aforesaid condition, the appellate authority shall decide the appeal on merits.

Writ petition is disposed of accordingly.