1 S. B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 1680/2008 KANTA JAIN V. STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS. DATE OF ORDER ::: 01/04/2008 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUNISHWAR NATH BHANDARI Mr. Sandeep Shah, for Petitioner (s). Mr. Rishi Vaishnav, Dy. G.A.,for Respondents. This writ petition is directed against the orders Annextures-8 and 10 passed by the respondents on 30th January, 2008 and 5th February, 2008. Contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that vide Annexture-8, application submitted by the petitioner for allotment of mine was dismissed on the ground that in view of the Circular dated 5.9.2000 and 18.12.2000, the area is falling under Scheduled Tribe area, therefore, there was a direction not to allot any mines therein. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the interpretation of circular dated 5.9.2000 and 18.12.2000 was otherwise subject-matter of separate writ petition and appeal before the Division Bench was then dismissed and the matter is pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. It is otherwise contended that the order Annexure-8 dated 30.1.2008 is issued at back date, which 2 otherwise is pursuant to the circular dated 5th February, 2008 Annexure-9, whereby the Circulars dated 5.9.2000 and 18.12.2000 were withdrawn and thereby, the application of petitioner became maintainable. It is further contended that pursuant to Annexure-10, Government has taken decision to treat all the applications pertaining to Scheduled Tribe area as rejected and a liberty is given for all concerned to file fresh applications. It is submitted that vide circular dated Annexutre-10, the petitioner's right of priority is lost and otherwise rejection of his application pursuant to circular is bad in law. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the petitioner is having alternative remedy of filing revision, which he has not availed of, as vide order Annexure-8 dated 30th January, 2008, her application has been dismissed, thus writ petition cannot be maintained in view of the availability of alternative statutory remedy. The further contention of the learned counsel for the respondent that so fr as Annexure 10 is concerned, it was not made applicable to the petitioner for the purpose of deemed rejection of her application for allotment of mine, inasmuch as so far as the case of the petitioner is concerned, it was 3 separately decided vide order dated 30-1-2008 which otherwise is not an anti-dated order and issue regarding as to whether the order dated 30.1.2008 was anti-dated or not, is essentially a question of fact, thus cannot be decided in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. I have considered submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the orders passed. Perusal of order Annexure-8 dated 30th January, 2008 shows that the application of the petitioner was rejected pursuant to the circular dated 5.9.2000 and 18.12.2000 and thereby it is not a case of deemed rejection of the application of the petitioner as per circular dated 5.2.2008 Annexure-10. The order dated 30.1.2008 has been anti- dated or not, is essential a question of fact, thus cannot be decided by this Court, more so when the aforesaid issue can be taken up and be decided by revisional authority and the learned counsel for the petitioner could not satisfy this Court as to why the alternative remedy was not exhausted by the petitioner. The petitioner submits that he has challenged Annexure-10, thus revision was not filed before the same authority, who had passed the order Annexure- 4 10. It is necessary to clarify that so far as the application of the petitioner is concerned, the same was rejected by the order dated 30.1.2008 and it is not a case where application of the petitioner is treated to have been rejected as per Circular dated 5.2.2008 Annexure-10. In view of the above, I do not find that any proper justification has been given by the petitioner in not exhausting the alternative remedy, more so, when it is not a case of deemed rejection pursuant to the order dated 5th February, 2008 as stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner. In view of the above, the writ petition is dismissed, with liberty to the petitioner to file revision petition and any such revision petition is filed by the petitioner within fifteen days from today, then the revisional authority is directed to decide the same expeditiously and preferably within a period of two months from the date of receipt of revision. The respondents are further directed not to make any allotment of the mine in reference, for a period of fifteen days from today. (M. N. BHANDARI), J. scd. 5