HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION No.32414 of 2011 Date: December 13, 2011 Between: U. Venkata Ramana … Petitioner And 1. The Revisional Authority, Ministry of Mines, Government Of India, New Delhi & 4 others. … Respondents * * * HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION No.32414 of 2011 O R D E R: Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.N.V. Ramanujam, learned standing counsel representing the respondents. 2. Petitioner was granted mining lease for Laterite over an extent of 4.447 hectares in Survey Nos.9/1, 9/3, 26/1, 26/2 and 27/2 of Vanthada village, Prathipadu Mandal, East Godavari District, for a period of 20 years vide G.O.Ms.No.139, Industries & Commerce (M.III) Department dated 09.6.2008. While the petitioner was working on the said mine, he was issued a show cause notice dated 09.10.2010 alleging violation of sub-section (1) of Section 4 of Mines and Minerals (Development & Regulation) Act, 1957, and though the petitioner submitted explanation, the same resulted in Demand Notice dated 11.01.2011. The petitioner preferred a revision before the State Government against the said demand instead of approaching the Central Government under Rule 54 of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960. While the revision was pending before the State Government and was listed for hearing on 29th March 2011, the petitioner realised that the revision ought to have been filed before the Central Government. Thereafter he preferred the revision before the Central Government along with an application seeking condonation of delay. The said revision petition, however, has been dismissed under the impugned order rejecting the petitioner’s explanation for condonation of delay. 3. Rule 54 (1) which deals with the power of the Central Government reads as hereunder: “54. Application for revision:- (1) Any person aggrieved by any order made by the State Government or other authority in exercise of the powers conferred on it by the Act or these rules may, within three months of the date of communication of the order to him apply to the Central Government in triplicate in Form N, for revision of the order. The application should be accompanied by a Bank draft for five thousand rupees on a nationalized bank in the name of ‘pay and Accounts Officer, Department of Mines’, payable at New Delhi or through a treasury challan for five thousand rupees under the Head of account 0853 Non-Ferrous Mining and Metallurgical Industries 102 Mineral Concession Fees, Rents and Royalties. Provided that any such application may be entertained after the said period of three months if the applicant satisfies the Central Government that he had sufficient cause for not making the application within time.” It would be noticed from the above proviso of said provision that the Central Government is empowered to condone the delay on being satisfied with the explanation for not submitting the revision petition within time. 4. In the present case, the petitioner has stated that he had filed a revision petition before the State Government against the Demand Notice and the said revision was preferred within time prescribed and was pending. In other words, the petitioner had approached a wrong forum by approaching the State Government instead of the Central Government. The delay in the present revision is akin to Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963, and the time spent by the petitioner in bona fide prosecuting the remedy before the wrong forum deserves to be considered from the standpoint of sufficient cause contemplated for condonation of delay. The present case, therefore, clearly falls within the aforesaid principle in the circumstances mentioned above and deserves to be condoned. However the impugned order does not show any consideration of the aforesaid aspect by the Central Government while rejecting petitioner’s revision on the ground that it is barred by time. The impugned order therefore is set aside. The delay in preferring the revision shall stand condoned and the revision petition shall stand remitted for consideration on merits to the Central Government. 5. The writ petition is accordingly allowed by setting aside the impugned order passed by Central Government by remitting the revision to the Central Government for fresh disposal on merits within three months. No order as to costs. ____________________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J. Date: December 13, 2011. BSB