Heard Mr. A.K.Jani, learned advocate, for Mr. Dagli, learned advocate for the petitioner, and Mr. Shah, learned AGP, for the respondent – State Government. 2. In present petition, the petitioner has prayed that:-
“11(B) That the Hon'ble Court may be pleased to allow this Special Civil Application directing respondent authority to forthwith decide the Revision Application pending before the competent authority at Annexure-D as ordered by this Hon'ble Court in view of peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case and in the interest of justice.”
3. The petitioner has claimed that the petitioner had preferred a revision application against the order dated 18.3.2011 whereby the petitioner's application under Gujarat Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2010 was rejected.
3.1 The petitioner has preferred present petition with a grievance that the revision application has remained pending before the authority for long and the authority has not decided the said revision application until now.
4. On advance service of copy of the petition, Mr. Shah, learned AGP, has appeared for the respondent – State. He has submitted that the respondent authorities have also considered the petitioner's revision application and appropriate response was forwarded to the petitioner under letter dated 7.5.2012 informing the petitioner that the revision application was filed after expiry of prescribed period of limitation and there was delay of 255 days and therefore, unless satisfactory explanation as regards the delay is not offered and sufficient cause is not made out, the revision application cannot be considered. Mr. Shah, learned AGP, also submitted that the petitioner was granted time until 16.5.2012 to submit appropriate explanation as regards the inordinate delay of 255 days.
5. Instead of complying the said instructions under letter dated 7.5.2012, the petitioner forwarded a communication dated NIL to the concerned respondent authority which appears to have been received in the office of respondent authority on 2.6.2012 wherein the petitioner merely informed the respondent authorities that he had to submit explanation on or before 16.5.2012, however, due to sad demise of his father, the explanation could not be forwarded. Except giving reason for not submitting the reply within time limit, the petitioner did not give any explanation about delay of 255 days and/or any reply to the communication dated 7.5.2012.
6. The fact remains that the revision application was delayed by 255 days and the petitioner was asked to offer satisfactory explanation and to make out sufficient cause to entertain the revision application, even after such inordinate delay.
7. Mr.Jani, learned advocate for the petitioner, has submitted that the revision application was made in prescribed format. He also submitted that in the revision application, the petitioner has clarified that the revision application was not made within the prescribed time limit and in response to query at Sr.No.8 in the prescribed formate of the revision application, the petitioner clarified that the reasons for delay caused in submitting the application are attached to the application and that therefore, the petitioner was not required to submit any other explanation.
On such ground, Mr. Jani, learned advocate for the petitioner, has tried to explain and conceal the petitioner's default in offering satisfactory explanation.
8. Even if the submission by Mr. Jani, learned advocate for the petitioner, is taken into account that reasons for delay caused in preferring the appeal is already stated in the revision application itself and the petitioner was not required to offer any other explanation, then also, it becomes clear that the petitioner's stand is unreasonable and unjustified, inasmuch as when the respondent authority forwarded the communication dated 7.5.2012, then, it clearly and unambiguously clarified the fact that the respondent authority was not convinced and/or satisfied with whatever the explanation the petitioner might have submitted. Obviously, the explanation, if any, submitted by the petitioner along with the revision application was not considered satisfactory and sufficient. Therefore, though not obliged to do so, the respondent authority forwarded the communication dated 7.5.2012 and allowed time until 16.5.2012 to the petitioner to offer further and satisfactory explanation and to make out sufficient cause to explain the delay.
9. However, not only the petitioner did not provide and submit satisfactory explanation to the competent authority, but even in his subsequent communication, the petitioner merely explained the reason why he could not submit the explanation within prescribed time limit. Even at that stage, i.e. in his communication dated NIL which was submitted to the respondent's office on 2.6.2012, the petitioner did not submit any reply explaining the inordinate delay of 255 days caused in preferring the revision application.
10. In this view of the matter, the petitioner's grievance that the petitioner's revision application is not decided and the respondent authority should be directed to decide the application, is not sustainable and cannot be accepted.
10.1 The above mentioned facts clarify that the competent authority has duly considered petitioner's application. The authority had granted opportunity to the petitioner to submit proper and satisfactory explanation explaining the reasons for delay caused in preferring the application, however, the petitioner did not offer any explanation.
Now, as an afterthought, Mr. Jani, learned advocate for the petitioner, contends that the explanation was already offered along with the application.
However, the petitioner overlooks the fact that the communication dated 7.5.2012 is clear indication that whatever explanation was tendered, the authority did not find it satisfactory and therefore, the petitioner was granted another opportunity which the petitioner did not avail.
Therefore, the petition does not deserve to be entertained.
10.2 It is, however, clarified that it would be open to the petitioner to submit proper explanation to the satisfaction of the respondent authority, within 1 week from receipt of certified copy of this order. If the petitioner offers proper explanation for delay caused in submitting the application, as required by the petitioner under communication dated 7.56.2012, then, the respondent authority may take into consideration the same and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law and applicable rules.
With the aforesaid observations and direction, present petition stands disposed of.
(K.M.Thaker, J.) kdc