- 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA. WRIT PETITION NO. 218 OF 2011. Abdul Azim Shaikh Mohidin, “Mohidins”, 01 First Floor, Commerce Centre Near Old Bus Stand, Vasco-da-Gama, Mormugao, Goa. …....... Petitioner. Versus 1 Union of India, Through Secretary, Ministry of Mines, (Revisional Authority- Central Government) Krishi Bhawan, New Delhi, India. 2 State of Goa, Through Secretary (Mines), Secretariat, Goa Legislative Assembly Complex, Porvorim, Goa. …....... Respondents. Mr. A. N. S. Nadkarni Senior Advocate with Mr. S. Kamat Malyekar, Advocate the for the petitioner. Mr. C. A. Ferreira, Assistant Solicitor General, for respondent no.1. Ms. S. Mordekar, Additional Government Advocate for respondent no. 2. - 2 - CORAM :- A. P. LAVANDE, J. DATE : 29 th August, 2011. ORAL JUDGMENT : Heard Mr. A. N. S. Nadkarni, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. C. A. Ferreira, learned Assistant Solicitor General, for respondent no.1 and Ms. S. Mordekar, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent no.2. 2. Rule. By consent heard forthwith. 3. By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner challenges the order dated 31st January, 2011 passed by respondent no.1 by which revision preferred under Section 30 of the Mines and Mineral (Development and Regulation) Act 1957 and Rule 55 of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 has been dismissed. 4. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner has invited my attention to the order dated 18th February, 2011 - 3 - passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 51 of 2011 in which while dealing with the identical matter, this Court has remanded the matter to respondent no.1 for passing fresh orders on the ground that no reasons have been given in the impugned order. 5. Mr. C. A. Ferreira, learned Assistant Solicitor General appearing for respondent no.1 states that respondent no.1 being quasi judicial authority, he leaves the matter to the Court. However according to him revisional Court has no authority to condone the delay in filing the revision application. Mr. Ferreira, learned Assistant Solicitor General has placed reliance on the judgments in the case of Sakuru Vs. Tanaji, (1985) 3 SCC 590 and in the case of Prakash H. Jain Vs. Marie Fernandes, (Ms), (2003) 8 SCC 431. 6. Mr.A. N. S. Nadkarni learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner placing reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of M/s. Harkaran Das Mangilal Vs. Union of India, AIR 1981 SC 1734 and in the case of Shri Nand Lal Jain Vs. State of Bihar, (1980) 3 SCC 317 submitted that - 4 - revisional authority has powers to condone the delay. 7. In view of the judgment dated 18.2.2011 passed in Writ Petition no. 51/2011, I deem it is not necessary to decide the issue of limitation when identical matter i.e. Writ Petition no. 51 of 2011 has been disposed of by me on certain terms. In Writ Petition no. 51/2011 the impugned order which was almost identical with the order in the present case was set aside on the ground that no reasons were given for dismissing the revision application. 8. In view of the above, impugned order dated 31.1.2011 passed by respondent no.1 is quashed and set aside. Respondent no. 1 is directed to pass fresh order giving reasons after giving an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner in the light of the observation made above and in accordance with law. Respondent no.1 shall deal with all the contentions that may be raised by the petitioner in the course of hearing of the revision application. Respondent no.1 shall dispose of the revision application expeditiously and in any case on or before 31.12.2011. - 5 - Needless to mention that all the contentions of the parties are kept open. 9. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms, with no order as to costs. A. P. LAVANDE, J. vn*