IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF MARCH, 2017 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. SUBHRO KAMAL MUKHERJEE, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.DINESH KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.36415 OF 2016 (GM-MM-S) BETWEEN VEDANTA LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS SESA STERLITE LIMITED & SESA GOA LIMITED) REGD.OFFICE AT P.O.BOX 125, SESAGHOR, 20, EDC COMPLEX, PATTO,PANJIM,GOA-403 001 REP BY ITS HEAD-FINANCE , IRON ORE, KARNATAKA, SRI ANAND PRAKASH DUBEY (BY SRI K N PHANINDRA, ADVOCATE) AND 1. UNION OF INDIA REP BY JOINT SECRETARY TO GOVT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF MINES, DEPARTMENT OF MINES, SHASTRI BHAVAN, NEW DELHI-110 001 ... PETITIONER 2. THE DIRECTOR OF MINES AND GEOLOGY DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY, "KHANIJA BHAVAN",5TH FLOOR, RACE COURSE ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001 3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF MINES AND GEOLOGY DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY, B.L.GOUDA LAYOUT, NEXT TO BASAPPA HOSPITAL CHITRADURGA, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT, KARNATAKA ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI K A ARIGA, ADVOCATE FOR R-1;
SRI V GBHANUPRAKASH, AGA, FOR R-2 & R-3) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 22.04.2016 IN REVISION APPLICATION PASSED BY R-1 VIDE ANNEX-A AND ALL FURTHER PROCEEDINGS THERETO, ETC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE CHIEF JUSTICE MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Mr.V.G.Bhanuprakash, learned additional government advocate, appears for the respondent nos.2 and 3. Mr.K.A.Ariga, learned advocate, appears for the respondent no.1-Union of India.
2. The Joint Secretary and Revisional Authority, Ministry of Mines, Government of India, dismissed the revisional application filed under Section 30 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, read with Rule 55 of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960, on the ground of limitation.
3. We have perused the application for condonation of delay. We feel that the petitioner has made out a case for condonation of delay in filing the revisional application. Moreover, better justice is, always, done if a lis is decided upon a contested hearing.
4. Therefore, the order passed by the revisional authority dated April 22, 2016, is set aside and the revisional application is restored to its original file and number. The revisional authority is requested to dispose of the application on merits in accordance with law.
5. We express no opinion on the merits of the claim of the parties.
6. The writ petition stands disposed of.
7. We make no order as to costs.
Sd/- CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- JUDGE vgh*