1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR O R D E R Samun Khan Vs. The State of Raj.& Ors. (SB CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 9705/2008) UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA DATE OF ORDER : DECEMBER 8, 2010. PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Mr. Vimal Choudhary for the petitioner. Mr. Zakir Hussain Dy. Govt. Counsel for the respondents. BY THE COURT : This writ petition has been filed assailing the order of the appellate authority- Addl. Director, Mines and Geology, Government of Rajasthan dated 6th February, 2008 wherein he petitioner challenged the order of the Supertendent Mining Engineer (SME for short) dated 27.2.03 was rejected. The SME rejected his application for renewal of the mining lease against which he filed the appeal and the appeal was dismissed on the ground of delay. Before the learned appellate authority the petitioner has not been able to give any reason for delay and the appeal was hopelessly time barred and the appeal was, therefore, dismissed. The revision petition filed by the petitioner was also dismissed by the Government vide order dated 11.4.08 wherein the order passed by the appellate 2 authority was maintained and it was held that since the petitioner failed to give any satisfactory explanation for the delay the appeal was rejected. The dispute land has been denotified and 29 applications were received by the respondents. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that under the family circumstances the petitioner could not made compliance of the notices dated 19.5.01 and 3.7.02 as he became an acute patient of depression. His father was murdered and he was implicated in a criminal case and was confined in jail for some time. He was regularly under the treatment of doctor in jail. He, therefore, argued that a liberal approach should be adopted by the court on the question of condonation of delay. It is also contended that the petitioner would be agreeable to deposit the penalty and the amount of dead rent for the intervening period if his case is considered sympathetically. Learned counsel for the respondents opposed the writ petition and submitted that the petitioner was not willing to get the lease renewed and he has not filed any explanation for the delay of a long period of 4 years and the reasons he has given are totally non-satisfactory as the argument with regard to death of his father and his father being murdered are of the year 2001 and have no relevance in the present 3 case because herein the appeal was to be filed against the order of SME passed on 27.2.03. The appellate authority has rejected the appeal and the revision petition also. Having perused the material on record and having heard the contentions made by the counsel for the parties I find that although it may be true that the petitioner may be acute patient of depression and the death of his brother to whom the lease originally was granted in 1971 by the State Government and death of his father may not be directly relevant to the present controversy but the death of his brother coupled with the murder of his father is the backdrop in which the petitioner became a patient of depression. Some medical certificates have been produced on record, apart from the death certificate of the father and brother. Length of delay may not be a reason to deny condonation of the same but what is relevant is the explanation given for such delay. Although the respondents stated that the area is denotified and 29 more application have been received but so far it is not informed that the mining lease of this area has been allotted to any other person. In the circumstances the matter of the petitioner deserves to be considered on merits. The writ petition is, therefore, allowed and the impugned orders dated 27.2.2003, 6.2.2008 and 11.4.2008 are set aside and the respondents 4 are directed to consider case of the petitioner on merits. In case the appeal of the petitioner is allowed, the petitioner shall deposit the penalty and the dead rent for the intervening period and in case the area in question is allotted to any other person in the meantime the petitioner may not be granted renewal of such area. The writ petition is allowed but however with the aforesaid direction to the Addl. Director, Mines and Geology, Government of Rajasthan. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ ) J. MRG.