IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.2734 of 2009 Between: Sri Suresh Agarwal S/o.Banarasilal Agarwal C/o. M/s. Sree Jagadamba Mining Private Limited Sree Jagadamba Oil Mill, Rampur Village, Ponnari Road, Adilabad - 504 001 (A.P.) ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Union of India, represented by its Secretary (Mines), Ministry of Mines, Shastry Bhavan, New Delhi 110 001. 2 The State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Secretary (Mines), Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad 500 022. 3 The Director of Mines & Geology, 8th floor, B.R.K.R. Buildings, Tank Bund Road, Hyderabad 500 029. 4 The Deputy Director of Mines and Geology, Nizamabad Region, H.No.6-2-200/83/C, Subhash Nagar, Nizamabad 503 001. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, order or direction more so one in the nature of Mandamus declaring the final Order No.54/2008 dated 24.11.2008 passed in the Revision Application dated 05.09.2008 filed by the Petitioner herein challenging the Demand Notice No. 1165/Vg/2006 dated 17.03.2008 for payment of Rs.6,81,345/- towards the cost of Mineral + Royalty as illegal, arbitrary, violative of principles of natural justice apart from being violative of the provisions of the Mines & Minerals (Development & Regulation) Act, 1957 and the Rules made thereunder and consequently set aside the same and direct the 1st respondent to hear the matter afresh in the interest of law and justice. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.PANNALA.SRINIVAS Counsel for the Respondents: MR.A.RAJASHEKAR REDDY (ASST SOLICITOR GEN) The Court made the following: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.2734 OF 2009 ORDER: Heard both sides. It appears, aggrieved by the demand notice dated 17.03.2008 issued by the 4th respondent- Deputy Director of Mines and Geology, Nizamabad Region, directing the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.6,81,345/- for illegal mining of about 441 MT of manganese ore in Sy.No.171/E of Pippalkoti Village, Thamsi Mandal of Adilabad District, the petitioner preferred a revision application before the 1st respondent- Union of India, on 05.09.2008. Since there was a delay of two months in preferring the said revision in view of the ill health of the petitioner, in his revision application, the petitioner requested the 1st respondent to condone the said delay explaining the reasons for such delay. But, the 1st respondent passed the impugned order dated 24.11.2008 holding that no documentary proof was filed in support of the statement of the petitioner that the delay was due to his ill health and, hence, no reasons were found by the 1st respondent to condone the said delay and admit the revision application. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed. The petitioner contends that, inadvertently, he forgot to file the medical certificate in proof of his ill health in the material papers filed along with the revision and, in fact, he has specifically asserted in his revision application that he was enclosing the medical certificate to show his bona fides, and even taking into consideration that assertion, the 1st respondent could have given him an opportunity to produce documentary evidence in support of his claim, instead of refusing to admit the revision application on that ground. A perusal of the impugned order clearly shows that the 1st respondent refused to admit the revision application filed by the petitioner on the grounds that the revision was time barred and no documentary evidence was produced by the petitioner in support of his statement that the delay in filing the said revision was due to his ill health. According to the petitioner, he has specifically asserted in the revision application that he was enclosing the medical certificate, but however, inadvertently, he forgot to file the same in the material papers filed along with the revision application. To show his bona fides, the petitioner produced before this Court a copy of the said medical certificate, which he intended to file along with the revision but forgot. In the facts and circumstances, I am of the opinion that the 1st respondent ought not to have refused to admit the revision application on mere technicalities of non-production of medical certificate for condoning the delay of two months occurred in filing the revision application. That apart, when there was specific assertion by the petitioner in his revision application that he was enclosing the medical certificate to prove his ill health at the relevant point of time, the 1st respondent should have given the petitioner an opportunity to produce the same or else should have put the petitioner on certain terms like costs etc. for condoning the minimal delay of two months. Instead of that, the 1st respondent erroneously passed the impugned order holding that there were no reasons to admit the revision application. For the aforesaid reasons, the impugned order dated 24.11.2008 is set aside and the 1st respondent is directed to take up the revision application preferred by the petitioner on file and dispose of the same in accordance with law, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________ JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU 13th February, 2009. IBL