1 D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No.1010/08 Smt.Kamaladevi V/s Dy.Secretary and ors. 30.7.2008 Hon'ble the Chief Justice Mr.Narayan Roy Hon'ble Mr.Justice Mohammad Rafiq Mr.Bhim Singh Dudi for the appellant. Heard learned counsel for the appellant. This appeal seeks to challenge the order dated 18th January, 2008 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court whereby the writ application filed by the appellant was dismissed. The appellant in the writ application has challenged the order dated 3rd November,2007 passed by the Dy.Secretary to Government, Mines Department, Jaipur dismissing her revision petition and also the order dated 24th May, 2007 passed by the Addl.Director (Mines), Jaipur whereby her appeal was dismissed and the order dated 19.5.2005 passed by the Mines Engineer, Sikar whereby her application for grant of mining lease was rejected. The learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the learned Single Judge has failed to appreciate that neither of the authorities decided the case of the writ petitioner-appellant on merits. Firstly the appellate court rejected the appeal of the writ petitioner-appellant on the ground that it was barred by period of limitation and the revisional authority has upheld that order. It was further submitted that the appellant had applied for grant of mining lease and that 2 application was rejected vide order dated 19.5.2005, but that order was not served upon her and even then the appeal was treated as time barred. Notice dated 2nd December, 2004 said to have been issued for removal of defects was never received by the appellant and it was only the reminder thereto dated 16th Feb.2005 which was received by her and if the period of limitation is counted from that date, the appeal would be in time. The Additional Director (Mines) even then illegally dismissed the appeal by order dated 24th May, 2007 as time barred. The revisional authority has also wrongly rejected the revision petition on the same ground on which first appeal was rejected and also on the ground that during the pendency of the revision petition, the Mining Engineer also granted mining lease to one Om Prakash Jat vide order dated 21.6.2007 and therefore, he was necessary party to the revision petition, but he was not impleaded by the appellant. It was argued that Om Prakash Jat was not necessary party because he himself obtained the mining lease upon undertaking on affidavit that in case the revision petition of the appellant was eventually decided in favour of appellant, mining lease granting to him may be cancelled. It was further argued that mining lease was granted to Om Prakash despite order of status quo passed in the revision petition filed by the appellant. The learned Single Judge of this Court has considered all those arguments which have been advanced before us and rightly held that the appeal was required to be filed within the period of 3 limitation, but it was filed four months after the period of limitation. No sufficient reasons to explain the delay have been shown. It is a fact, which is admitted even by the appellant that the allotment of mining lease was made to Om Prakash Jat during the pendency of the revision petition and this fact was known to her and even then she did not implead Om Prakash Jat as party-respondent to the revision petition. The orders passed by the appellate authority as also the revisional authority cannot therefore be said to be either illegal or otherwise erroneous. For the same reason, the learned Single Judge was also justified in dismissing the writ application. Thus, we do not find any merit in this appeal. It is accordingly dismissed. (Mohammad Rafiq)J. (Narayan Roy)C.J. Parmar