Ummeda Ram vs The State Of Rajasthan on 9 April, 2019

[Cites 11, Cited by 0]

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Ummeda Ram vs The State Of Rajasthan on 9 April, 2019

Author: Sangeet Lodha

Bench: Sangeet Lodha, Dinesh Mehta

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR

D.B. Civil Writ No. 2996/2018
Bajri Lease Lol Holders Welfare Society Through Its President,
Shri Nawal Singh Ratnawat Son Of Shri Narayan Singh Ratnawat
Aged about 62 years, Having Its Registered Office At A-24,
Ambabari, Jaipur.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan Through Principal Secretary To
Government, Mines Department, Government Secretariat,
Jaipur.
2. Jt. Secretary To Government, Mines Gr. 2 Department,
Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
3. Director, Department Of Mines And Geology, Udaipur.
4. Union Of India, Through The Secretary, Ministry Of
Environment Forest And Climate Change, Indira
Paryawaran Bhawan, Jorbagh, New Delhi- 11000.
----Respondents
Connected With
D.B. Civil Writ No. 12394/2018

Berojgar Yuvak Rojgar Sahkari Samiti Ltd., Bikaner, Through
President, Ummed Mohammed S/o Shri Mustak Ali Khan, B/c
Muslim, Aged 39 Years, R/o Megha Market, Tilak Nagar Sagar
Raod, Bikaner.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Mines
And Geology, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat,
Jaipur.
2. The Joint Secretary To Government, Mines (Gr.2)
Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat,
Jaipur.
3. The Director, Department Of Mines And Geology, Khanij
Bhawan , Shastri Circle, Udaipur (Raj.)
4. The Additional Director (Mines), Department Of Mines And
Geology, Khanij Bhawan,6, West Patel Nagar, Ratanada,
Jodhpur.

(Downloaded on 27/06/2019 at 10:47:50 PM)
(2 of 66) [CW-2996/2018

5. The Assistant Mining Engineer, Department Of Mines And
Geology, Bus Stand, Balesar Main Road, Balesar.
6. The Regional Officer, Rajasthan State Pollution Control
Board, Government Of Rajasthan, Phase-I, Marudhar
Industrial Area, Basni, Jodhpur-342005.
7. The District Collector And Chairman Of District Level
Environment Committee, Jodhpur.
8. Union Of India, Through The Secretary, Ministry Of
Environment, Forest And Climate Change, Indira
Paryawaran Bhawan, Jorbagh, New Delhi.
----Respondents
D.B. Civil Writ No. 4188/2018
1. Sh. Paras Sethi S/o Sh. PK Sethi, Aged about 28 Years,
R/o A-189, New Friends Colony, New Delhi
2. Sh. PK Sethi S/o Late S. Sethi, Aged about 61 Years, R/o
A-189, New Friends Colony, New Delhi
3. Manjeet Chawla S/o Shri Amarjeet Singh Chawla, Aged
About 55 years R/o G-201, Preet Vihar, Delhi- 110092.
4. Aman Sethi S/o Late Shri SP Sethi, Aged About 46 Years
R/o S-541, Greater Kailash Part-II, New Delhi.
5. Sh. Raman Sethi S/o Sh. S.P. Sethi, Aged About 49 Years
R/o S-312, Panchsheel Park, New Delhi 110017
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan Through Principal Secretary To
Government, Mines Department, Government Secretariat,
Jaipur.
2. Jt. Secretary To Government, Mines Gr. 2 Department,
Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
3. Director, Department Of Mines And Geology, Udaipur.
4. Union Of India Through The Secretary, Ministry Of
Environment Forest And Climate Change, Indira
Paryawaran Bhawan, Jorbagh, New Delhi- 11000.
----Respondents
D.B. Civil Writ No. 4784/2018
1. Manoj Kumar Jain S/o Shri Nem Kumar Jain, Aged About
49 Years, R/o Vpo Kunjer Tehsil Atru District Baran.
2. Naresh Gautam S/o Shri Purshottam Gautam, Aged About

(Downloaded on 27/06/2019 at 10:47:50 PM)
(3 of 66) [CW-2996/2018

36 years, R/o Vpo Menoli Tehsil Keshoraipatan District
Bundi.
3. Pramod Meena Son Of Shri Brij Mohan Meena, Aged About
38 Years, R/o 1-Tha-11, Dadabari, Kota.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan Through Principal Secretary To
Government, Mines Department, Government Secretariat,
Jaipur.
2. Jt. Secretary To Government, Mines Gr. 2 Department,
Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
3. Director, Department Of Mines And Geolgoy, Udaipur.
4. Union Of India, Through The Secretary, Ministry Of
Environment Forest And Climate Change, Indira
Paryawaran Bhawan, Jorbagh, New Delhi- 11000.
----Respondents
D.B. Civil Writ No. 4785/2018
Mateshwari Minetech Pvt. Ltd. Through Its Director Kshitij Kumar
Choudhary Son Of Shri Surya Pal Choudhary, Aged About 35
Years, Having Registered Office At Flat No. 706, B-Block, Athena
Building, Sawai Jai Singh Highway, Banipark, Jaipur-302016.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan Through Principal Secretary To
Government, Mines Department, Government Secretariat,
Jaipur.
2. Jt. Secretary To Government, Mines Gr.2 Department,
Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
3. Director, Department Of Mines And Geology, Udaipur.
4. Union Of India, Through The Secretary, Ministry Of
Environment Forest And Climate Change, Indira
Paryawaran Bhawan, Jorbagh, New Delhi-11000.
----Respondents

D.B. Civil Writ No. 9150/2018
M/s. Asht Vinayak Mines, Through Its Partner Ladlesh Vyas S/o
Shri Laxmi Narayan Ji Vyas, Aged 51 Years, R/o Shyam Manohar
Nagar, Chopasni, Jodhpur.

(Downloaded on 27/06/2019 at 10:47:50 PM)
(4 of 66) [CW-2996/2018

----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary To
Government, Mines Department, The Government Of
Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Director, Mines And Geology Department, Khanij
Bhawan, Udaipur.
3. Union Of India Through The Secretary, Ministry Of
Environment, Forest And Climate Change, Indira
Paryavaran Bhawan, New Delhi.
4. District Environment Impact Assessment Authority,
Through Chairman District Collector, Jodhpur.
5. The Mining Engineer, Mines And Geology Department,
Jodhpur.
----Respondents
D.B. Civil Writ No. 9194/2018
M/s Shri Hari Mines, Through Its Partner Shri Parmeshwar Lal
Rathi S/o Shri Ram Narayan Rathi, Aged 55 Years, R/o Village
Keru, Tehsil And District Jodhpur.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary To
Government, Mines Department, The Government Of
Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Director, Mines And Geology Department, Khanij
Bhawan, Udaipur.
3. Union Of India Through The Secretary, Ministry Of
Environment, Forest And Climate Change, Indira
Paryavaran Bhawan, New Delhi.
4. District Environment Impact Assessment Authority
Through Chairman, District Collector, Jodhpur.
5. The Mining Engineer, Mines And Geology Department,
Jodhpur.
----Respondents
D.B. Civil Writ No. 9195/2018
M/s Ambika Sandstone Mines, Village Keru, Tehsil And District
Jodhpur, Through Its Partner Shri Dayal Ram S/o Shri Banwar
Ram, Aged 30 Years, R/o Royalty Naka, Balsamand, Mandore

(Downloaded on 27/06/2019 at 10:47:50 PM)
(5 of 66) [CW-2996/2018

Roas , Jodhpur
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary To
Government Mines Department, The Government Of
Rajasthan , Secretariat , Jaipur.
2. The Director, Mines And Geology Department, Khanij
Bhawan Udaipur
3. Union Of India, Through The Secretary, Ministry Of
Environment, Forest And Climate Change, Indira
Paryavaran Bhawan, New Delhi,
4. District Environment Impact Assessment Authority,
Through Chairman District Collector, Jodhpur
5. The Mining Engineer, Mines And Geology Department,
Jodhpur
----Respondents
D.B. Civil Writ No. 9200/2018
M/s Surbhi Sandstone, Through Its Partner Pukhraj Gehlot S/o
Shri Ramchandra Gehlot, Aged 62 Years, R/o Kheme Ka Kua, Pal
Road Jodhpur
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary To
Government, Mines Department, The Government Of
Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur
2. The Director, Mines And Geology Department, Khanij
Bhawan , Udaipur
3. Union Of India, Through The Secretary, Ministry Of
Environment, Forest And Climate Change, Indira
Paryavaran Bhawan, New Delhi
4. District Environment Impact Assessment Authority,
Through Chairman District Collector, Jodhpur
5. The Mining Engineer, Mines And Geology Department,
Jodhpur
----Respondents
D.B. Civil Writ No. 9201/2018
M/s. Mahadev Mines, Through Its Partner Shri Ladlesh Vyas S/o
Shri Laxminarayan Vyas, Aged 51 Years, R/o Shyam Manohar

(Downloaded on 27/06/2019 at 10:47:50 PM)
(6 of 66) [CW-2996/2018

Nagar, Chopasani, Jodhpur
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary To
Government, Mines Department, The Government Of
Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur
2. The Director, Mines And Geology Department, Khanij
Bhawan, Udaipur
3. Union Of India Through The Secretary, Ministry Of
Environment, Forest And Climate Change, Indira
Paryavaran Bhawan, New Delhi
4. District Environment Impact Assessment Authority
Through Chairman District Collector, Jodhpur
5. The Mining Engineer, Mines And Geology Department,
Jodhpur
----Respondents
D.B. Civil Writ No. 9202/2018
M/s. Hanumant Mines And Minerals, Through Its Partner Shri Sita
Ram S/o Shri Pancha Ram, Aged 70 Years, R/o Village Kuchera,
Tehsil Mundva, District Nagaur
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary To
Government, Mines Department, The Government Of
Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur
2. The Director, Mines And Geology Department, Khanij
Bhawan, Udaipur
3. Union Of India Through The Secretary, Ministry Of
Environment, Forest And Climate Change, Indira
Paryavaran Bhawan, New Delhi
4. State Environment Impact Assessment Authority,
Rajasthan, Jaipur
5. The Mining Engineer, Mines And Geology Department,
Nagour
----Respondents
D.B. Civil Writ No. 9298/2018
M/s. Ashok Mines And Minerals Through Its Partner Shri
Hanuman Ram, S/o Shri Sita Ram, Aged About 40 Years, R/o

(Downloaded on 27/06/2019 at 10:47:50 PM)
(7 of 66) [CW-2996/2018

Village Pateli, Tehsil Jayal, District Nagaur.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan Through Principal Secretary To
Government, Mines Department, The Government Of
Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Director, Mines And Geology Department, Khanij
Bhawan, Udaipur.
3. Union Of India Through The Secretary, Ministry Of
Environment, Forest And Climate Change, Indira
Paryavaran Bhawan, New Delhi.
4. State Environment Impact Assessment Authority,
Rajasthan, Jaipur.
5. The Mining Engineer, Mines And Geology Department,
Nagour.
----Respondents
D.B. Civil Writ No. 9311/2018
Ummeda Ram S/o Shri Bhanwra Ram, Aged About 45 Years, R/o
Village Datani, Via Merta, Tehsil Merta, District Nagaur
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary To
Government, Mines Department, The Government Of
Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur
2. The Director, Mines And Geology Department, Khanij
Bhawan, Udaipur
3. Union Of India Through The Secretary, Ministry Of
Environment, Forest And Climate Change, Indira
Paryavaran Bhawan, New Delhi
4. State Environment Impact Assessment Authority,
Rajasthan, Jaipur
5. The Mining Engineer, Mines And Geology Department,
Nagour
----Respondents
D.B. Civil Writ No. 9318/2018
Puna Ram Jat S/o Shri Rupa Ram Jat, Aged 43 Years, R/o
Village Indawad, Tehsil Merta, District Nagaur.
----Petitioner

(Downloaded on 27/06/2019 at 10:47:50 PM)
(8 of 66) [CW-2996/2018

Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary To
Government, Mines Department, The Government Of
Rajasthan Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Director, Mines And Geology Department, Khanij
Bhawan, Udaipur.
3. Union Of India, Through The Secretary, Ministry Of
Environment, Forest And Climate Change, Indira
Paryavaran Bhawan, New Delhi.
4. State Environment Impact Assessment Authority,
Rajasthan, Jaipur.
5. The Mining Engineer, Mines And Geology Department,
Nagour.
----Respondents
D.B. Civil Writ No. 9320/2018
Ummeda Ram S/o Shri Bhanwra Ram, Aged 45 Years, R/o Village
Datani, Via Merta, Tehsil Merta, District Nagaur.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary To
Government, Mines Department, The Government Of
Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Director, Mines And Geology Department, Khanij
Bhawan, Udaipur.
3. Union Of India Through The Secretary, Ministry Of
Environment, Forest And Climate Change, Indira
Paryavaran Bhawan, New Delhi.
4. State Environment Impact Assessment Authority,
Rajasthan, Jaipur.
5. The Mining Engineer, Mines And Geology Department,
Nagour.
----Respondents
D.B. Civil Writ No. 9326/2018
M/s. Prateek Mines And Minerals, Through Its Partner Narayan
Ram S/o Shri Jagram, Aged 38 Years, R/o Bhawanda, Tehsil
Khinvsar, District Nagaur
----Petitioner
Versus

(Downloaded on 27/06/2019 at 10:47:50 PM)
(9 of 66) [CW-2996/2018

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary To
Government, Mines Department, The Government Of
Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur
2. The Director, Mines And Geology Department, Khanij
Bhawan, Udaipur
3. Union Of India Through The Secretary, Ministry Of
Environment, Forest And Climate Change, Indira
Paryavaran Bhawan, New Delhi
4. State Environment Impact Assessment Authority,
Rajasthan, Jaipur
5. The Mining Engineer, Mines And Geology Department,
Nagour
----Respondents
D.B. Civil Writ No. 9327/2018
M/s. Maa Sharda Mines And Minerals Through Its Partner Ramjas
Mundel S/o Shri Bhawarlal Mundel, Aged 31 Years, R/o Village
Pateli, Post Bodva Via Kuchera, Tehsil Jayal, District Nagaur.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan Through Principal Secretary To
Government, Mines Department, The Government Of
Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Director, Mines And Geology Department, Khanij
Bhawan, Udaipur.
3. Union Of India Through The Secretary, Minestry Of
Environment, Forest And Climate Change, Indira
Paryavaran Bhawan, New Dehli
4. State Environment Impact Assessment Authority
Rajasthan, Jaipur.
5. The Maning Engineer, Mines And Geology Department,
Nagaur
----Respondents
D.B. Civil Writ No. 9333/2018
M/s Arihant Mines And Minerals, Firozpura Charna Post Gothda,
Via Kchera Tehsil And District Nagour Through Its Partner
Bhikam Chand Jain S/o Shri Amarchand Jain, Aged 61 Years, R/o
E-134, Kamla Nehru Nagar, Jodhpur.
----Petitioner

(Downloaded on 27/06/2019 at 10:47:50 PM)
(10 of 66) [CW-2996/2018

Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan Through Principal Secretary To
Government, Mines Department, The Government Of
Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Director, Mines And Geology Department, Khanij
Bhawan, Udaipur.
3. Union Of India Through The Secretary, Ministry Of
Environment, Forest And Climate Change, Indira
Paryavaran Bhawan, New Dehli
4. State Environment Impact Assessment Authority
Rajasthan, Jaipur.
5. The Maning Engineer, Mines And Geology Department,
Nagaur.
----Respondents
D.B. Civil Writ No. 9334/2018
M/s. Shri Sandan Mata Mines And Minerals, Through Its Partner
Shri Kumbha Ram S/o Shri Tulchha Ram, Aged 45 Years, R/o
Village Firozpura, Tehsil Mundva, District Nagaur
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary To
Government, Mines Department, The Government Of
Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur
2. The Director, Mines And Geology Department, Khanij
Bhawan, Udaipur
3. Union Of India Through The Secretary, Ministry Of
Environment, Forest And Climate Change, Indira
Paryavaran Bhawan, New Delhi
4. State Environment Impact Assessment Authority,
Rajasthan, Jaipur
5. The Mining Engineer, Mines And Geology Department,
Nagour
----Respondents
D.B. Civil Writ No. 9335/2018
M/s. Shri Guru Gusai Mines And Minerals, Through Its Partner
Shri Ram Niwas S/o Shri Jana Ram, Aged 35 Years, R/o Village
Junjhala, Tehsil Jayal, District Nagaur.
----Petitioner

(Downloaded on 27/06/2019 at 10:47:50 PM)
(11 of 66) [CW-2996/2018

Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary To
Government, Mines Department, The Government Of
Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Director, Mines And Geology Department, Khannij
Bhawan, Udaipur.
3. Union Of India Through The Secretary, Ministry Of
Environment, Forest And Climate Change, Indira
Paryavaran Bhawan, New Delhi.
4. State Environment Impact Assessment Authority,
Rajasthan, Jaipur.
5. The Mining Engineer, Mines And Geology Department,
Nagour.
----Respondents
D.B. Civil Writ No. 9336/2018
M/s Shri Salasar Balaji Mines And Minerals Through Its Partner,
Khushwant S/o Shri Hari Ram, Aged 26 Years, R/o Village
Firozpura Charna, Post Gothda, Via Kuchera Tehsil And District
Nagour.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary To
Government, Mines Department, The Government Of
Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Director, Mines And Geology Department, Khanij
Bhawan, Udaipur.
3. Union Of India Thorugh The Secretary, Ministry Of
Environment, Forest And Climate Change, Indira
Paryavaran Bhawan, New Delhi.
4. State Environment Impact Assessment Authority,
Rajasthan, Jaipur.
5. The Mining Engineer, Mines And Geology Department,
Nagour.
----Respondents
D.B. Civil Writ No. 9337/2018
M/s. Sachiyay Mata Mines, Through Its Partner Mangi Lal Mundel
S/o Shri Devkaran Mundel, Aged 35 Years, R/o Village Pateli,
Post Bodva, Tehsil Jayal, District Nagour

(Downloaded on 27/06/2019 at 10:47:50 PM)
(12 of 66) [CW-2996/2018

----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary To
Government, Mines Department, The Government Of
Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur
2. The Director, Mines And Geology Department, Khanij
Bhawan, Udaipur
3. Union Of India Through The Secretary, Ministry Of
Environment, Forest And Climate Change, Indira
Paryavaran Bhawan, New Delhi
4. State Environment Impact Assessment Authority,
Rajasthan, Jaipur
5. The Mining Engineer, Mines And Geology Department,
Nagour
----Respondents
D.B. Civil Writ No. 9338/2018
M/s. Bharat Mines And Minerals Through Its Partner Smt. Jasoda
Devi W/o Shri Hariram, Aged 40 Years, R/o Village Kuchera,
Tehsil Mundva, District Nagaur.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary To
Government, Mines Department, The Government Of
Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Director, Mines And Geology Department, Khanij
Bhawan, Udaipur.
3. Union Of India Thorugh The Secretary, Ministry Of
Environment, Forest And Climate Change, Indira
Paryavaran Bhawan, New Delhi.
4. State Environment Impact Assessment Authority,
Rajasthan, Jaipur.
5. The Mining Engineer, Mines And Geology Department,
Nagour
----Respondents
D.B. Civil Writ No. 9483/2018
Indrajeet Singh Jhala S/o Shri Arjun Singh Jhala, Aged About 46
Years, R/o Nalla Mohalla, Khari Kuiyan, Jhalawar, Post And
Station Jhalawar, Tehsil Jhalrapatan, District Jhalawar.

(Downloaded on 27/06/2019 at 10:47:50 PM)
(13 of 66) [CW-2996/2018

----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary To
Government, Mines Department, Government Secretariat,
Jaipur.
2. Jt. Secretary To Government, Mines (Gr.2) Department,
Government, Secretariat, Jaipur.
3. Director, Department Of Mines And Geology, Udaipur.
4. Union Of India, Through The Secretary, Ministry Of
Environment Forest And Climate Change, Indira
Paryawaran Bhawan, Jorbagh, New Delhi-11000.
----Respondents
D.B. Civil Writ No. 10558/2018
Shera Ram S/o Shri Bhera Ram, Aged About 49 Years, By Caste
Shasi, R/o Village Taliya, Kalaau, Tehsil Shergarh, District
Jodhpur.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Mines
And Geology, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat,
Jaipur.
2. The Joint Secretary To Government, Mines (Gr.2)
Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat,
Jaipur.
3. The Director, Department Of Miens And Geology, Khanij
Bhawan, Shastri Circle, Udaipur (Raj.).
4. The Additional Director (Mines), Department Of Mines Ang
Geology, Khanij Bhawan, 6, West Patel Nagar, Ratanada,
Jodhpur.
5. The Assistant Mining Engineer, Department Of Mines Ang
Geology, Bus Stand, Balesar Main Road, Balesar.
6. The Regional Officer, Rajasthan State Pollution Control
Board, Government Of Rajasthan, Phase-I, Marudhar
Industrial Area, Basni, Jodhpur-342005
7. The District Collector And Chairman Of District Level
Environment Committee, Jodhpur.
8. Union Of India Through The Secretary, Ministry Of
Environment, Forest And Climate Change, Indira

(Downloaded on 27/06/2019 at 10:47:50 PM)
(14 of 66) [CW-2996/2018

Paryawaran Bhawan, Jorbagh, New Delhi.
----Respondents
D.B. Civil Writ No. 10562/2018
Muni Kanwar W/o Shri Arjun Singh, Aged About 30 Years, By
Caset Rajput, R/o Sihad Rupawat Nagar, Jaloda, Tehsil Phalodi,
District Jodhpur.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Mines
And Geology, Government Of Rajathan, Secretariat,
Jaipur.
2. The Joint Secretary To Government, Mines (Gr.2)
Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat,
Jaipur.
3. The Director, Department Of Mines And Geology, Khanij
Bhawan,shastri Circle, Udaipur (Raj.).
4. The Additional Director (Mines), Department Of Mines And
Geology, Khanij Bhawan, 6, West Patel Nagar, Ratanada,
Jodhpur.
5. The Assistant Mining Engineer, Department Of Mines And
Geology, Bus Stand, Balesar Main Road, Balesar.
6. The Regional Officer, Rajasthan State Pollution Control
Board, Government Of Rajasthan, Phase-I, Marudhar
Industrial Area, Basni, Jodhpur-342005
7. The District Collector And Chairman Of District Level
Environment Committee, Jodhpur.
8. Union Of India Through The Secretary, Ministry Of
Environment, Forest And Ciimate Change, Indira
Paryawaran Bhawan, Jorbagh, New Delhi.
----Respondents
D.B. Civil Writ No. 10823/2018
Lalu Ram W/o Shri Bhiya Ram, Aged About 82 Years, By Caste
Mali, R/o Village Post Balesar Durgawatan, Tehsil Balesar, District
Jodhpur
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Mines
And Geology, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat,

(Downloaded on 27/06/2019 at 10:47:50 PM)
(15 of 66) [CW-2996/2018

Jaipur
2. The Joint Secretary to Government, Mines (Gr.2)
Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat,
Jaipur
3. The Director, Department Of Mines And Geology, Khanij
Bhawan, Shastri Circle, Udaipur (Raj)
4. The Additional Director (Mines), Department Of Mines And
Geology, Khanij Bhawan, 6, West Patel Nagar, Ratanada,
Jodhpur
5. The Assistant Mining Engineer, Department Of Mines And
Geology, Bus Stand, Balesar Main Road, Balesar
6. The Regional Officer, Rajasthan State Pollution Control
Board, Government Of Rajasthan, Phase-I, Marudhar
Industrial Area, Basni, Jodhpur- 342005
7. Union Of India Through The Secretary, Ministry Of
Environment, Forest And Climate Change, Indira
Paryawaran Bhawan, Jorbagh, New Delhi
----Respondents
D.B. Civil Writ No. 10827/2018
Dharam Singh S/o Shri Jagdish Prasad Meena, Aged About 39
Years, By Caste Meena, R/o Chak Dantli, Post Bhawani Chhapar
Ki Dhani, Tehsil Jamwa Ramgarh, Dist. Jaipur
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary,
Mines And Geology, Government Of Rajasthan,
Secretariat, Jaipur
2. The Joint Secretary to Government, Mines (Gr.2)
Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat,
Jaipur
3. The Director, Department Of Mines And Geology, Khanij
Bhawan, Shastri Circle, Udaipur (Raj
4. The Additional Director (Mines), Department Of Mines And
Geology, Khanij Bhawan, 6, West Patel Nagar, Ratanada,
Jodhpur
5. The Assistant Mining Engineer, Department Of Mines And
Geology, Bus Stand, Balesar Main Road, Balesar
6. The Regional Officer, Rajasthan State Pollution Control
Board, Government Of Rajasthan, Phase-I, Marudhar

(Downloaded on 27/06/2019 at 10:47:50 PM)
(16 of 66) [CW-2996/2018

Industrial Area, Basni, Jodhpur- 342005
7. The District Collector And Chairman Of District Level
Environment Committee, Jodhpur
8. Union Of India Through The Secretary, Ministry Of
Environment, Forest And Climate Change, Indira
Paryawaran Bhawan, Jorbagh, New Delhi
----Respondents
D.B. Civil Writ No. 10834/2018
Seema Meena W/o Shri Ramchandra, Aged About 37 Years, By
Caste Meena, R/o Plot No. 85, Ganesh Nagar, Ward No. 24, Tehsil
Sanganer, Jaipur
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Mines
And Geology, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat,
Jaipur
2. The Joint Secretary to Government, Mines (Gr.2)
Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat,
Jaipur
3. The Director, Department Of Mines And Geology, Khanij
Bhawan, Shastri Circle, Udaipur (Raj)
4. The Additional Director (Mines), Department Of Mines And
Geology, Khanij Bhawan, 6, West Patel Nagar, Ratanada,
Jodhpur
5. The Assistant Mining Engineer, Department Of Mines And
Geology, Bus Stand, Balesar Main Road, Balesar
6. The Regional Officer, Rajasthan State Pollution Control
Board, Government Of Rajasthan, Phase-I, Marudhar
Industrial Area, Basni, Jodhpur- 342005
7. The District Collector And Chairman Of District Level
Environment Committee, Jodhpur
8. Union Of India Through The Secretary, Ministry Of
Environment, Forest And Climate Change, Indira
Paryawaran Bhawan, Jorbagh, New Delhi
----Respondents
D.B. Civil Writ No. 10846/2018
Rajendra Kumar S/o Shri Gopal Acharya, Aged About 38 Years,
R/o Kachhola, Ward No. 01, Mandal Garh, Dist. Bhilwara

(Downloaded on 27/06/2019 at 10:47:50 PM)
(17 of 66) [CW-2996/2018

----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Mines
And Geology, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat,
Jaipur
2. The Joint Secretary to Government, Mines (Gr.2)
Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat,
Jaipur
3. The Director, Department Of Mines And Geology, Khanij
Bhawan, Shastri Circle, Udaipur (Raj)
4. The Additional Director (Mines), Department Of Mines And
Geology, Khanij Bhawan, 6, West Patel Nagar, Ratanada,
Jodhpur
5. The Assistant Mining Engineer, Department Of Mines And
Geology, Bus Stand, Balesar Main Road, Balesar
6. The Regional Officer, Rajasthan State Pollution Control
Board, Government Of Rajasthan, Phase-I, Marudhar
Industrial Area, Basni, Jodhpur- 342005
7. The District Collector And Chairman Of District Level
Environment Committee, Jodhpur
8. Union Of India Through The Secretary, Ministry Of
Environment, Forest And Climate Change, Indira
Paryawaran Bhawan, Jorbagh, New Delhi
----Respondents
D.B. Civil Writ No. 10867/2018
Deepa Ram W/o Shri Ramchandra, Aged About 35 Years, By
Caste Naai, Resident Of Baganada Meghwal, Ketoo Manawata,
Ketu Kallan, Tehsil Balesar, District Jodhpur.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Mines
And Geology, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat,
Jaipur.
2. The Joint Secretary To Government, Mines (Gr.2)
Department, Government, Government Of Rajasthan,
Secretariat, Jaipur.
3. The Director, Department Of Mines And Geology, Khanij
Bhawan, Shastri Circle, Udaipur (Raj)

(Downloaded on 27/06/2019 at 10:47:50 PM)
(18 of 66) [CW-2996/2018

4. The Additional Director (Mines), Department O Mines And
Geology, Khanij Bhawan, 6, West Patel Nagar, Ratanada,
Jodhpur.
5. The Assistant Mining Engineer, Department Of Mines And
Geology, Bus Stand, Balesar Main Road, Balesar.
6. The Regional Officer, Rajasthan State Pollution Control
Board, Government Of Rajasthan, Phase-I Marudhar
Industrial Area, Basni, Jodhpur-342005
7. The District Collector And Chairman Of District Level
Environment Committee, Jodhpur.
8. Union Of India Through The Secretary, Ministry Of
Environment, Forest And Climate Change, Indira
Paryawaran Bhawan, Jorbagh, New Delhi.
----Respondents
D.B. Civil Writ No. 10951/2018
Sayar Devi W/o Shri Purkha Ram, Aged About 52 Years, By
Caste Bheel, R/o Durgawata, Tehsil Balesar, District Jodhpur
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Mines
And Geology, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat,
Jaipur
2. The Joint Secretary To Government, Mines (Gr.2)
Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat,
Jaipur
3. The Director, Department Of Mines And Geology, Khanij
Bhawan, Shastri Circle, Udaipur (Raj)
4. The Additional Director (Mines), Department Of Mines And
Geology, Khanij Bhawan, 6, West Patel Nagar, Ratanada,
Jodhpur
5. The Assistant Mining Engineer, Department Of Mines And
Geology, Bus Stand, Balesar Main Road, Balesar, Dist
Jodhpur
6. The Regional Officer, Rajasthan State Pollution Control
Board, Government Of Rajasthan, Phase-I, Marudhar
Industrial Area, Basni, Jodhpur- 342005
7. The District Collector And Chairman Of District Level
Environment Committee, Jodhpur
8. Union Of India Through The Secretary, Ministry Of

(Downloaded on 27/06/2019 at 10:47:50 PM)
(19 of 66) [CW-2996/2018

Environment, Forest And Climate Change, Indira
Paryawaran Bhawan, Jorbagh, New Delhi
----Respondents
D.B. Civil Writ No. 10955/2018
Rewant Ram S/o Shri Buddha Ram, Aged About 34 Years, By
Caste Jat, R/o Mandiyai, Kalan Via Tinwari, Tehsil Osian, Dist.
Jodhpur
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary,
Mines And Geology, Government Of Rajasthan,
Secretariat, Jaipur
2. The Joint Secretary To Government, Mines (Gr.2)
Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat,
Jaipur
3. The Director, Department Of Mines And Geology, Khanij
Bhawan, Shastri Circle, Udaipur (Raj)
4. The Additional Director (Mines), Department Of Mines And
Geology, Khanij Bhawan, 6, West Patel Nagar, Ratanada,
Jodhpur
5. The Assistant Mining Engineer, Department Of Mines And
Geology, Bus Stand, Balesar Main Road, Balesar, Distt
Jodhpur
6. The Regional Officer, Rajasthan State Pollution Control
Board, Government Of Rajasthan, Phase-I, Marudhar
Industrial Area, Basni, Jodhpur- 342005
7. The District Collector And Chairman Of District Level
Environment Committee, Jodhpur
8. Union Of India Through The Secretary, Ministry Of
Environment, Forest And Climate Change, Indira
Paryawaran Bhawan, Jorbagh, New Delhi
----Respondents
D.B. Civil Writ No. 10957/2018
Gomati Devi W/o Shri Umeda Ram, Aged About 42 Years, By
Caste Meghwal, R/o Village Post Rajgarh Belva, Tehsil Balesar,
District Jodhpur
----Petitioner
Versus

(Downloaded on 27/06/2019 at 10:47:50 PM)
(20 of 66) [CW-2996/2018

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Mines
And Geology, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat,
Jaipur
2. The Joint Secretary To Government, Mines (Gr.2)
Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat,
Jaipur
3. The Director, Department Of Mines And Geology, Khanij
Bhawan, Shastri Circle, Udaipur (Raj)
4. The Additional Director (Mines), Department Of Mines And
Geology, Khanij Bhawan, 6, West Patel Nagar, Ratanada,
Jodhpur
5. The Assistant Mining Engineer, Department Of Mines And
Geology, Bus Stand, Balesar Main Road, Balesar, Distt.-
Jodhpur
6. The Regional Officer, Rajasthan State Pollution Control
Board, Government Of Rajasthan, Phase-I, Marudhar
Industrial Area, Basni, Jodhpur- 342005
7. The District Collector And Chairman Of District Level
Environment Committee, Jodhpur
8. Union Of India Through The Secretary, Ministry Of
Environment, Forest And Climate Change, Indira
Paryawaran Bhawan, Jorbagh, New Delhi
----Respondents
D.B. Civil Writ No. 10960/2018
Papali W/o Shri Pola Ram, Aged About 55 Years, By Caste Bheel,
R/o Doli Khurd, Tehsil Pachpadra, District Barmer
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Mines
And Geology, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat,
Jaipur
2. The Joint Secretary To Government, Mines (Gr.2)
Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat,
Jaipur
3. The Director, Department Of Mines And Geology, Khanij
Bhawan, Shastri Circle, Udaipur (Raj)
4. The Additional Director (Mines), Department Of Mines And
Geology, Khanij Bhawan, 6, West Patel Nagar, Ratanada,
Jodhpur

(Downloaded on 27/06/2019 at 10:47:50 PM)
(21 of 66) [CW-2996/2018

5. The Assistant Mining Engineer, Department Of Mines And
Geology, Bus Stand, Balesar Main Road, Balesar
6. The Regional Officer, Rajasthan State Pollution Control
Board, Government Of Rajasthan, Phase-I, Marudhar
Industrial Area, Basni, Jodhpur- 342005
7. The District Collector And Chairman Of District Level
Environment Committee, Jodhpur
8. Union Of India Through The Secretary, Ministry Of
Environment, Forest And Climate Change, Indira
Paryawaran Bhawan, Jorbagh, New Delhi
----Respondents
D.B. Civil Writ No. 12401/2018
Sarwan Kumar S/o Shri Madan Lal, Aged About 24 Years, By
Caste Brahaman, R/o Chand Ki Khedi, Tehsil Bijoliya, Dist.
Bhilwara
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Mines
And Geology, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat,
Jaipur
2. The Joint Secretary To Government, Mines (Gr. 2)
Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat,
Jaipur
3. The Director, Department Of Mines And Geology, Khanij
Bhawan, Shastri Circle, Udaipur (Raj)
4. The Additional Director (Mines), Department Of Mines And
Geology, Khanij Bhawan, 6, West Patel Nagar, Ratanada,
Jodhpur
5. The Assistant Mining Engineer, Department Of Mines And
Geology, Bus Stand, Balesar Main Road, Balesar
6. The Regional Officer, Rajasthan State Pollution Control
Board, Government Of Rajasthan, Phase-I, Marudhar
Industrial Area, Basni, Jodhpur- 342005
7. The District Collector And Chairman Of District Level
Environment Committee, Jodhpur
8. Union Of India Through The Secretary, Ministry Of
Environment, Forest And Cilmate Change, Indira
Paryawaran Bhawan, Jorbagh, New Delhi
----Respondents

(Downloaded on 27/06/2019 at 10:47:50 PM)
(22 of 66) [CW-2996/2018

D.B. Civil Writ No. 12406/2018
Bhawani Shankar S/o Shri Mohan Lal, Aged About 44 Years, By
Caste Bheel, R/o Berisal Chouraha, Post Salvariya, Tehsil Bijoliya,
Dist. Bhilwara
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Mines
And Geology, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat,
Jaipur
2. The Joint Secretary To Government, Mines (Gr. 2)
Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat,
Jaipur
3. The Director, Department Of Mines And Geology, Khanij
Bhawan, Shastri Circle, Udaipur (Raj)
4. The Additional Director (Mines), Department Of Mines And
Geology, Khanij Bhawan, 6, West Patel Nagar, Ratanada,
Jodhpur
5. The Assistant Mining Engineer, Department Of Mines And
Geology, Bus Stand, Balesar Main Road, Balesar
6. The Regional Officer, Rajasthan State Pollution Control
Board, Government Of Rajasthan, Phase-I, Marudhar
Industrial Area, Basni, Jodhpur- 342005
7. The District Collector And Chairman Of District Level
Environment Committee, Jodhpur
8. Union Of India Through The Secretary, Ministry Of
Environment, Forest And Cilmate Change, Indira
Paryawaran Bhawan, Jorbagh, New Delhi
----Respondents
D.B. Civil Writ No. 12409/2018
Deravar Singh S/o Shri Mal Singh, Aged About 43 Years, By
Caste Rajput, R/o Jeero Ki Dhani, Setrava, Tehsil Shergarh,
District Jodhpur
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Mines
And Geology, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat,
Jaipur
2. The Joint Secretary To Government, Mines (Gr. 2)

(Downloaded on 27/06/2019 at 10:47:50 PM)
(23 of 66) [CW-2996/2018

Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat,
Jaipur
3. The Director, Department Of Mines And Geology, Khanij
Bhawan, Shastri Circle, Udaipur (Raj)
4. The Additional Director (Mines), Department Of Mines And
Geology, Khanij Bhawan, 6, West Patel Nagar, Ratanada,
Jodhpur
5. The Assistant Mining Engineer, Department Of Mines And
Geology, Bus Stand, Balesar Main Road, Balesar
6. The Regional Officer, Rajasthan State Pollution Control
Board, Government Of Rajasthan, Phase-I, Marudhar
Industrial Area, Basni, Jodhpur- 342005
7. The District Collector And Chairman Of District Level
Environment Committee, Jodhpur
8. Union Of India Through The Secretary, Ministry Of
Environment, Forest And Cilmate Change, Indira
Paryawaran Bhawan, Jorbagh, New Delhi
----Respondents
D.B. Civil Writ No. 12412/2018
Deepa Ram S/o Shri Durga Ram, Aged About 30 Years, By Caste
Jat, R/o Village Digari, Post Malunga, Tehsil Tinwari, District
Jodhpur
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Mines
And Geology, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat,
Jaipur
2. The Joint Secretary To Government, Mines (Gr. 2)
Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat,
Jaipur
3. The Director, Department Of Mines And Geology, Khanij
Bhawan, Shastri Circle, Udaipur (Raj)
4. The Additional Director (Mines), Department Of Mines And
Geology, Khanij Bhawan, 6, West Patel Nagar, Ratanada,
Jodhpur
5. The Assistant Mining Engineer, Department Of Mines And
Geology, Bus Stand, Balesar Main Road, Balesar
6. The Regional Officer, Rajasthan State Pollution Control
Board, Government Of Rajasthan, Phase-I, Marudhar

(Downloaded on 27/06/2019 at 10:47:50 PM)
(24 of 66) [CW-2996/2018

Industrial Area, Basni, Jodhpur- 342005
7. The District Collector And Chairman Of District Level
Environment Committee, Jodhpur
8. Union Of India Through The Secretary, Ministry Of
Environment, Forest And Cilmate Change, Indira
Paryawaran Bhawan, Jorbagh, New Delhi
----Respondents
D.B. Civil Writ No. 12415/2018
Manohar Singh S/o Shri Indar Singh, Aged About 38 Years, By
Caste Rajput, R/o 4/n/56 Kudi Bhagtasani Housing Board,
Jodhpur
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Mines
And Geology, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat,
Jaipur
2. The Joint Secretary To Government, Mines (Gr. 2)
Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat,
Jaipur
3. The Director, Department Of Mines And Geology, Khanij
Bhawan, Shastri Circle, Udaipur (Raj)
4. The Additional Director (Mines), Department Of Mines And
Geology, Khanij Bhawan, 6, West Patel Nagar, Ratanada,
Jodhpur
5. The Assistant Mining Engineer, Department Of Mines And
Geology, Bus Stand, Balesar Main Road, Balesar
6. The Regional Officer, Rajasthan State Pollution Control
Board, Government Of Rajasthan, Phase-I, Marudhar
Industrial Area, Basni, Jodhpur- 342005
7. The District Collector And Chairman Of District Level
Environment Committee, Jodhpur
8. Union Of India Through The Secretary, Ministry Of
Environment, Forest And Cilmate Change, Indira
Paryawaran Bhawan, Jorbagh, New Delhi
----Respondents
D.B. Civil Writ No. 12418/2018
Hemant S/o Shri Babu Lal, Aged About 31 Years, By Caste
Jingar, R/o 2-Sa-36, Pratap Nagar, Jodhpur

(Downloaded on 27/06/2019 at 10:47:50 PM)
(25 of 66) [CW-2996/2018

----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Mines
And Geology, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat,
Jaipur
2. The Joint Secretary To Government, Mines (Gr. 2)
Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat,
Jaipur
3. The Director, Department Of Mines And Geology, Khanij
Bhawan, Shastri Circle, Udaipur (Raj)
4. The Additional Director (Mines), Department Of Mines And
Geology, Khanij Bhawan, 6, West Patel Nagar, Ratanada,
Jodhpur
5. The Assistant Mining Engineer, Department Of Mines And
Geology, Bus Stand, Balesar Main Road, Balesar
6. The Regional Officer, Rajasthan State Pollution Control
Board, Government Of Rajasthan, Phase-I, Marudhar
Industrial Area, Basni, Jodhpur- 342005
7. The District Collector And Chairman Of District Level
Environment Committee, Jodhpur
8. Union Of India Through The Secretary, Ministry Of
Environment, Forest And Cilmate Change, Indira
Paryawaran Bhawan, Jorbagh, New Delhi
----Respondents
D.B. Civil Writ No. 13007/2018
Pinka Kanwar W/o Shri Chhagan Singh Rajput, Aged About 37
Years, R/o Tinwari Tehsil Osian District Jodhpur.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Mines
And Geology, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat,
Jaipur.
2. The Joint Secretary To Government, Mines (Gr.2)
Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat,
Jaipur.
3. The Director, Department Of Mines And Geology, Khanij
Bhawan, Shastri Circle, Udaipur (Raj.).
4. The Additional Director (Mines), Department Of Mines And

(Downloaded on 27/06/2019 at 10:47:50 PM)
(26 of 66) [CW-2996/2018

Geology, Khanij Bhawan, 6, West Patel Nagar, Ratanada,
Jodhpur.
5. The Assistant Mining Engineer, Department Of Mines And
Geology, Bus Stand, Balesar Main Road Balesar, District
Jodhpur.
6. The Regional Officer, Rajasthan State Pollution Control
Board, Government Of Rajasthan, Phase-I, Marudhar
Industrial Area, Basni, Jodhpur - 342005
7. The District Collector And Chairman Of District Level
Environment Committee, Jodhpur.
8. Union Of India, Through The Secretary, Ministry Of
Environment, Forest And Climate Change, Indira
Paryawaran Bhawan, Jorbagh, New Delhi.
----Respondents
D.B. Civil Writ No. 13012/2018
Naveen Marwar Yuva Berojgar Khanan Karya Innovative Sahakari
Samiti Ltd., Jodhpur, Plot No. 19, Khasra No. 55/07 C. Road,
Saran Nagar, Banar Road, Jodhpur Through Its President Shri
Devaram S/o Shri Jiyaram Age 41 Years, R/o Devatada Tehsil
Bhopalgarh District Jodhpur.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Mines
And Geology, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat,
Jaipur.
2. The Joint Secretary To Government, Mines (Gr.2)
Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat,
Jaipur.
3. The Director, Department Of Mines And Geology, Khanij
Bhawan, Shastri Circle, Udaipur (Raj.).
4. The Additional Director (Mines), Department Of Mines And
Geology, Khanij Bhawan, 6, West Patel Nagar, Ratanada,
Jodhpur.
5. The Assistant Mining Engineer, Department Of Mines And
Geology, Bus Stand, Balesar Main Road, Balesar, Distt.
Jodhpur.
6. The Regional Officer, Rajasthan State Pollution Control
Board, Government Of Rajasthan, Phase-I, Marudhar
Industrial Area, Basani, Jodhpur- 342005

(Downloaded on 27/06/2019 at 10:47:50 PM)
(27 of 66) [CW-2996/2018

7. The District Collector And Chairman Of District Level
Environment Committee, Jodhpur.
8. Union Of India Through The Secretary, Ministry Of
Environment, Forest And Climate Change, Indira
Paryawaran Bhawan, Jorbagh, New Delhi.
----Respondents
D.B. Civil Writ No. 13061/2018
Khuman Kanwar W/o Shri Bhanwar Singh, Aged About 75 Years,
R/o Village Post Belwa Ranaji Tehsil Balesar, District Jodhpur.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Mines
And Geology, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat ,
Jaipur.
2. The Joint Secretary To Government, Mines Department
(Gr. 2), Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
3. The Director, Department Of Mines And Geology, Khanij
Bhawan, Shastri Circle, Udaipur (Raj)
4. The Additional Director (Mines), Department Of Mines And
Geology, Khanij Bhawan, 6, West Patel Nagar, Ratanada,
Jodhpur.
5. The Assistant Mining Engineer, Department Of Mines And
Geology, Bus Stand , Balesar Main Road, Balesar, Distt
Jodhpur.
6. The Regional Officer, Rajasthan State Pollution Control
Board, Government Of Rajasthan, Phase-I, Marudhar
Industrial Area, Basni, Jodhpur 342005
7. The District Collector And Chairman Of District Level
Environment Committee, Jodhpur, Dist Jodhpur.
8. Union Of India, Through The Secretary, Ministry Of
Environment, Forest And Climate Change, Indira
Paryawaran Bhawan, Jorbagh, New Delhi.
----Respondents
D.B. Civil Writ No. 13126/2018
Khuman Kanwar W/o Shri Bhanwar Singh, Aged About 76 Years,
R/o Village Post Belwa Ranaji Tehsil Balesar, District Jodhpur.
----Petitioner
Versus

(Downloaded on 27/06/2019 at 10:47:50 PM)
(28 of 66) [CW-2996/2018

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Mines
And Geology, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat,
Jaipur.
2. The Joint Secretary To Government, Mines (Gr.2)
Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat,
Jaipur.
3. The Director, Department Of Mines And Geology, Khanij
Bhawan, Shastri Circle, Udaipur (Raj.).
4. The Additional Director (Mines), Department Of Mines And
Geology, Khanij Bhawan, 6, West Patel Nagar, Ratanada,
Jodhpur.
5. The Assistant Mining Engineer, Department Of Mines And
Geology, Bus Stand, Balesar Main Road, Balesar, Distt
Jodhpur.
6. The Regional Officer, Rajasthan State Pollution Control
Board, Government Of Rajasthan, Phase-I, Marudhar
Industrial Area, Basni, Jodhpur- 342005.
7. The District Collector And Chairman Of District Level
Environment Committee, Jodhpur. Distt. Jodhpur.
8. Union Of India Through The Secretary, Ministry Of
Environment, Forest And Climate, Change, Indira
Paryawaran Bhawan, Jorbagh, New Delhi.
----Respondents
D.B. Civil Writ No. 13320/2018
M/s. S.S.R. Industries, Through Its Power Of Attorney Holder
Shri Vikram Singh S/o Shri Rawat Sisng Aged 50 Years, R/o 194,
Indra Kripa, Hanwat B B.J.S. Colony, Jodhpur.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary To
Government, Mines Department, The Government Of
Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Director, Mines And Geology Department, Khanij
Bhawan, Udaipur.
3. The Additional Director, Mines And Geology Department,
Jodhpur.
4. The Mining Engineer, Mines And Geology Department,
Sojat City.
----Respondents

(Downloaded on 27/06/2019 at 10:47:50 PM)
(29 of 66) [CW-2996/2018

D.B. Civil Writ No. 13549/2018
M/s. SSR Industries, Through Its Power Of Attorney Holder Shri
Vikram Singh S/o Shri Rawat Singh Aged 50 Years, R/o 194,
Indra Kripa, Hanwant B B.J.S. Colony, Jodhpur
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary To
Government, Mines Department, The Government Of
Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur
2. The Director, Mines And Geology Department, Khanij
Bhawan, Udaipur
3. The Additional Director, Mines And Geology Department,
Jodhpur
4. The Mining Engineer, Mines And Geology Department,
Sojat City
----Respondents
D.B. Civil Writ No. 14835/2018
Sanjay Agarwal S/o Shri Hariprasad Agarwal, Aged About 39
Years, By Caste Agarwal, 43 C, Shakti Nagar, Paota C Road,
Jodhpur.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary To
Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Director, Mines And Geology Department, Khanij
Bhawan, Shastri Circle, Udaipur.
3. Union Of India, Through The Secretary, Ministry Of
Environment, Forest And Climate Change, Indira
Paryavaran Bhawan, New Delhi.
4. State Environment Impact Assessment Authority,
Rajasthan, Jaipur.
5. The Mining Engineer, Mines And Geology Department,
Jodhpur.
----Respondents
D.B. Civil Writ No. 16599/2018
Madan Ram S/o Shri Jagmalaram, Aged About 43 Years, R/o
Village Chordiya Tehsil Shergarh District Jodhpur.
----Petitioner

(Downloaded on 27/06/2019 at 10:47:50 PM)
(30 of 66) [CW-2996/2018

Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Mines
And Geology, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat,
Jaipur.
2. The Joint Secretary To Government, Mines (Gr.2)
Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat,
Jaipur.
3. The Director, Department Of Mines And Geology, Khanij
Bhawan, Shastri Circle, Udaipur (Raj.).
4. The Additional Director (Mines), Department Of Mines And
Geology, Khanij Bhawan, 6, West Patel Nagar, Ratanada,
Jodhpur.
5. The Assistant Mining Engineer, Department Of Mines And
Geology, Bus Stand, Balesar Main Road, Balesar.
6. The Regional Officer, Rajasthan State Pollution Control
Board, Government Of Rajasthan, Phase-I, Marudhar
Industrial Area, Basni, Jodhpur-342005.
7. The District Collector And Chairman Of District Level
Environment Committee, Jodhpur.
8. Union Of India, Through The Secretary, Ministry Of
Environment, Forest And Climate Change, Indira
Paryawaran Bhawan, Jorbagh, New Delhi.
----Respondents
D.B. Civil Writ No. 17268/2018
Natu Kanwar W/o Shri Tej Singh, Aged About 41 Years, Keru,
Tehsil And District Jodhpur.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Mines
And Geology, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat,
Jaipur.
2. The Joint Secretary To Government, Mines (Gr.2)
Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat,
Jaipur.
3. The Director, Department Of Mines And Geology, Khanij
Bhawan, Shastri Circle, Udaipur (Raj)
4. The Additional Director (Mines), Department Of Mines And
Geology, Khanij Bhawan, 6, West Patel Nagar, Ratanada,
Jodhpur.

(Downloaded on 27/06/2019 at 10:47:50 PM)
(31 of 66) [CW-2996/2018

5. The Assistant Mining Engineer, Department Of Mines And
Geology, Bus Stand, Balesar Main Road, Balesar.
6. The Regional Officer, Rajasthan Pollution Control Board,
Government Of Rajasthan, Phase-I, Marudhar Industrial
Area, Basni, Jodhpur - 342005
7. The District Collector And Chairma Of District Level
Environment Committee, Jodhpur.
8. Union Of India, Through The Secretary, Ministry Of
Environment, Forest And Climate, Change, Indira
Paryawaran Bhawan, Jorbagh, New Delhi.
----Respondents
D.B. Civil Writ No. 17271/2018
Marudhara Yuva Berojgar Khanan Karya Innovative Sahakari
Samiti Ltd., Dewatada Panchayat Samiti Bhopalgarh Village Post
Budkiya District Jodhpur Through Its President Omaram S/o Shri
Nainaram Jat Age-35 Years R/o Dewatada Panchayat Samiti
Bhopalgarh Village Post Budkiya District Jodhpur.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Mines
And Geology, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat,
Jaipur.
2. The Joint Secretary To Government, Mines (Gr.2)
Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat,
Jaipur.
3. The Director, Department Of Mines And Geology, Khanij
Bhawan, Shastri Circle, Udaipur (Raj)
4. The Additional Director (Mines), Department Of Mines And
Geology, Khanij Bhawan, 6, West Patel Nagar, Ratanada,
Jodhpur.
5. The Assistant Mining Engineer, Department Of Mines And
Geology, Bus Stand, Balesar Main Road, Balesar.
6. The Regional Officer, Rajasthan Pollution Control Board,
Government Of Rajasthan, Phase-I, Marudhar Industrial
Area, Basni, Jodhpur - 342005
7. The District Collector And Chairma Of District Level
Environment Committee, Jodhpur.
8. Union Of India, Through The Secretary, Ministry Of
Environment, Forest And Climate, Change, Indira

(Downloaded on 27/06/2019 at 10:47:50 PM)
(32 of 66) [CW-2996/2018

Paryawaran Bhawan, Jorbagh, New Delhi.
----Respondents

D.B. Civil Writ No. 3655/2018
M/s Ridhi Sidhi Associates Mateshwari Bhojnalaya, Jal Chaki,
Rajsamand Through Its Partner Jay Singh Chouhan S/o
Bhanwar Lal Chouhan Aged 63 Years, R/o 28, Omkar Nagar,
Ajmer.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan Through Principal Secretary To
Government, Mines Department, Government,
Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Jt. Secretary To Government, Mines Gr.2 Department,
Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
3. Director, Department Of Mines And Geology, Udaipur.
4. Union Of India, Through The Secretary, Ministry Of
Environment Forest And Climate Change, Indira
Paryawaran Bhawan, Jorbagh, New Delhi-11000.
----Respondents
D.B. Civil Writ No. 3683/2018
Manohar Lal Mewara S/o Gopi Lal Mewara, Aged 44 Years, By
Caste Mewara, R/o Nagar Palika Colony, Amet, Charbhuja
Road, Amet Rajsamand.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan Through Principal Secretary To
Government, Mines Departmnet, Government,
Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Jt. Secretary To Government, Mines Gr.2 Department,
Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
3. Director, Department Of Mines And Geology, Udaipur.
4. Union Of India, Through The Secretary, Ministry Of
Environment Forest And Climate Change, Indira
Paryawaran Bhawan, Jorbagh, New Delhi-11000.

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. M.S.Singhvi, Senior Advocate with
Mr.Abhishek Mehta, Mr. D.S.Rajvi,

(Downloaded on 27/06/2019 at 10:47:50 PM)
(33 of 66) [CW-2996/2018

Mr.B.M. Bohra, Mr. Kuldeep Vaishnav,
Mr. Ankur Mathur, Mr. Sandeep Singh
Shekhawat, Mr. Girish Joshi,
Mr.K.K.Vyas and Mr. Devendra Khatri
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rajesh Panwar, AAG with Mr.
Ayush Gehlot, Mr. Utkarsh Singh and
Ms. Aarohi Ojha for Mr. Sanjeet
Purohit

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANGEET LODHA

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA Judgment Per Hon'ble Mr. Sangeet Lodha,J.

9th April, 2019 Reportable 1. By way of these writ petitions, the petitioners have challenged the vires of sub-rule (4) of Rule 5 of Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2017 (for short "the Rules of 2017"), which provides that in all cases covered by Rule 5, the conditions of Letter of Intent (LoI) including execution and registration of mining lease, shall be fulfilled within a period of one year from the date of commencement of the Rules of 2017 i.e. 28.2.17, failing which, the right of the LoI holders shall be forfeited and in such cases, it would not be mandatory for the Government to issue any order in this regard.

2. The petitions involving the common issues, were heard together and are being decided by this common judgment.

3. To appreciate the issues raised, it is essential to refer to the background facts in nutshell and for this purpose, we consider it appropriate to refer to the facts of D.B.C.Writ Petition No.2996/18, preferred by Bajri LoI Holders Welfare Society espousing the cause of its members, which was argued, as lead case before us. (Downloaded on 27/06/2019 at 10:47:50 PM)

(34 of 66) [CW-2996/2018

4. The grant of quarry licenses, mining leases and other mineral concessions in respect of minor mineral in the State of Rajasthan were governed by Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1986 (for short "the Rules of 1986"), framed by the State Government in exercise of power conferred by Section 15 of the Mines and Minerals (Development & Regulation) Act, 1957 (for short "the Act of 1957").

5. The issue of serious environmental impact on ephemeral, seasonal and perennial rivers and river beds and adverse effect on biodiversity on account of quarrying, mining and removal of sand from instream and upstream of several rivers came up for consideration of the Supreme Court in the matter of 'Deepak Kumar vs. State of Haryana' 2012(4) SCC 629. During the course of hearing, the Court issued directions to the Central Empowered Committee (CEC) to make local inspection with the intimation to Ministry of Environment & Forest (MoEF), of the State of U.P., State of Rajasthan and State of Haryana with regard to alleged illegal mining going on and to examine whether there has been an attempt to flout Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) notification dated 14.9.06 by breaking the homogenous area into pieces of less than five hectares. CEC was also directed to examine whether the activities going on in that area have any adverse environmental impact. In compliance of the order, CEC submitted a detailed report. After due examination of the report submitted by the CEC as also taking into consideration the recommendations of MoEF, the Supreme Court opined that it is highly necessary to have an effective framework of mining plan which will take care of all environmental issues and also evolve a long term rational and sustainable use of natural resource base and also the bio- (Downloaded on 27/06/2019 at 10:47:50 PM)

(35 of 66) [CW-2996/2018 assessment protocol. The court observed that sand mining may have an adverse effect on biodiversity as a loss of habitat caused by sand mining will affect various species, flora and fauna and it may also destabilise the soil structure of river banks and often leaves isolated islands. The court observed that the State of Haryana and various other States have not so far implemented the recommendations of MoEF or the guidelines issued by the Ministry of Mines before issuing auction notices granting short term permits by way of auction of minor minerals, boulders, gravel, sand etc. in the riverbeds and elsewhere of less than five hectare. Accordingly, the Supreme Court while directing all the States, Union Territories, MoEF and the Ministry of Mines to give effect to the recommendations made by MoEF in its Report of March 2010 and the model guidelines framed by the Ministry of Mines, within a period of six months, issued following further directions:

"28. The Central Government also should take steps to bring into force the Minor Minerals Conservation and Development Rules, 2010 at the earliest. The State Governments and UTs also should take immediate steps to frame necessary rules under Section 15 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 taking into consideration the recommendations of MoEF in its Report of March 2010 and model guidelines framed by the Ministry of Mines, Government of India. Communicate the copy of this order to MoEF, Secretary, Ministry of Mines, New Delhi; Ministry of Water Resources, Central Government Water Authority, the Chief Secretaries of the respective States and Union Territories, who would circulate this order to the Departments concerned.

29. We, in the meanwhile, order that leases of minor minerals including their renewal for an area of less than five hectares be granted by the States/ Union Territories only after getting environmental clearance from MoEF. Ordered accordingly."

6. Pursuant to the directions issued as aforesaid by the Supreme Court, the Government of Rajasthan brought about amendments to the Rules of 1986 by way of Rajasthan Minor (Downloaded on 27/06/2019 at 10:47:50 PM) (36 of 66) [CW-2996/2018 Mineral Concession (Amendment) Rules, 2012 (for short "Amendment Rules, 2012), whereby inter alia existing proviso to sub-rule (3) of Rule 63 of Rules of 1986 permitting mining operations through issuance of short term permits came to be deleted. That apart, following significant amendments, were brought about:

(a) Mining leases for mineral bajri shall be granted only by way of tender or auction [Rule 7(4)];

(b) Mining lease for mineral bajri shall be granted only for a period of five years [Rule 16(3)];

(c) Mining lease for mineral bajri shall not be renewed. (Rule 17)

7. The State Government identified 130 mining areas for excavation of minor mineral bajri and the same were put to auction in accordance with the Rules of 1986 as amended by Amendment Rules, 2012. The LoIs were issued to the successful bidders including the petitioners herein, whereunder they were required to fulfill following conditions:

(a) To submit the mining plan duly approved by the competent authority;

(b) To submit the environmental clearance obtained from Ministry of Forest & Environment, Government of India; and

(c) To furnish affidavit of financial security assurance in terms of Rule 37J.

8. The petitioners, LoI holders, submitted the mining plans to the competent authority which were duly approved by the Department of Mines. However, the matter with regard to fulfillment of the pre requisite condition of obtaining Environment Clearance (EC) remained pending consideration. (Downloaded on 27/06/2019 at 10:47:50 PM)

(37 of 66) [CW-2996/2018

9. The grant of mining lease as provided in Amendment Rules, 2012 notified vide notification dated 23.5.12 was likely to take time and therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by Rule 65A of the Rules of 1986 in the interest of mineral development, the State Government notified the procedure for grant of concession of mineral bajri as under:

"1. Mining leases for mineral bajri will be granted as provided in Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession (Amendment) Rules, 2012 notified vide this Department Notification No.F.14(1) Mines/Gr.II/2011 dated 23-05- 2012.

2. Till such time that mining leases of bajri comes into force as per above amended rule, Mining Engineer/Asstt. Mining Engineer may recover royalty and other charges, as a fulfillment of granting Short Term Permit to bajri carrying vehicles, at the rates prescribed in the said period as decided by the Director.

3. No person shall excavate bajri beyond the depth of three meters from the surface, below the water level of river/nallah and within 45 meter of any rail/road bridge. Anyone who contravenes this shall be liable for unauthorised working, under rule 48 of the said rules."

10. The inconsistency in the action of the State Government in amending the Rules of 1986 by way of Amendment Rules, 2012 and at the same time, issuing notification as aforesaid continuing with the grant of short term permit were challenged by a Non Government Organisation vide Writ Petition (PIL) No.13189/13 "Nature Club vs. State of Rajasthan", before this Court, seeking directions to the State not to permit mining of the sand without EC in accordance with the amended Rules. It was claimed that the notification dated 21.6.12 issued by the State Government is in contravention of directions issued by the Supreme Court in Deepak Kumar's case (supra). The writ petition was disposed of with the consent of the parties vide order dated 15.4.13 in the following terms:

(Downloaded on 27/06/2019 at 10:47:50 PM)

(38 of 66) [CW-2996/2018 "(i) Respondent no.3-Union of India, Ministry of Environment & Forest Department, shall take a final decision on the pending application in respect of Environmental Clearance Certificate, within a period of three months, from today.

(ii) The State Government as well as Director, respondent nos. 1 and 2, will take final decision on the pending applications within a period of three months from the date of issuance of Environmental Clearance Certificate by respondent no.3.

Learned Advocate General has also agreed that after expiry of total period of six months from today, the Mining Department will not recover royalty and other charges as per earlier provision and will comply with the provisions of the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession (Amendment) Rules, 2012."

11. The EC was not issued and therefore, the State Government preferred an application before the Division Bench of this court, which was rejected. Aggrieved thereby, the State of Rajasthan and one another preferred Special Leave Petition before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Supreme Court by way of interim order dated 25.11.13 directed that till the end of February, 2014, the Letter of Intent holders, 82 in number, who have submitted their applications to MoEF for clearance can carry on mining operations in accordance with the notification dated 21 st June, 2012 issued by the Government of Rajasthan under Rule 65 of the Rules of 1986. Accordingly, the State Government permitted the LoI holders to carry on mining operations on the terms and conditions specified. Vide order dated 27.3.14, the interim order was continued till the matter is heard and further order is passed by the Supreme Court.

12. In February, 2016, MoEF granted EC to 12 projects proponents on the strength of positive recommendations by Expert Appraisal Committee (EAC). In the meantime, in October, 2016, MoEF mandated replenishment study which required assessment of pre monsoon and post monsoon mineral quantities on the river bed and therefore, the LoI holders were left with no (Downloaded on 27/06/2019 at 10:47:50 PM) (39 of 66) [CW-2996/2018 choice but to wait till September, 2017 for such a study and submission to MoEF for consideration.

13. Vide order dated 13.10.17, the Supreme Court directed MoEF to check up whether the EC has been granted to the mining lessees and whether all the lessees had applied for EC and if so, the present status thereof. Thereafter, vide order dated 16.11.17, the Supreme Court restrained all the 82 LoI holders from carrying out mining of the sand and bajri unless replenishment study is completed and the matter is fully and dispassionately considered by the MoEF and an EC is granted or rejected.

14. The matter with regard to grant of EC remains pending with the MoEF and for want of EC, the members of the petitioner society and the individual petitioners before this court are not undertaking mining operation as on the date.

15. During the pendency of consideration of matter for grant of EC before MoEF and the pending proceedings before the Supreme Court, the State Government vide notification dated 28.2.17, issued in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 15 of the Act of 1957 promulgated the Rules of 2017 for regulating the grant of quarry licenses, mining leases and other mineral concessions in respect of minor minerals and for the purpose connected therewith and repealed the Rules of 1986. However, as per "Repeal and Saving" clause as contained in Rule 3 of the Rules of 2017, it is provided that anything done or any action taken under the provisions of the Rules so repealed shall be deemed to have been done or taken under the provisions of these Rules.

16. It is pertinent to note that before coming into force of the Rules of 2017, the disposal of the applications for the grant and (Downloaded on 27/06/2019 at 10:47:50 PM) (40 of 66) [CW-2996/2018 renewal of the mining lease under the Rules of 1986 was governed by Rule 8 as amended from time to time, which reads as under:

"(1) An application for grant of mining lease shall be disposed off by the competent authority. The competent authority, after taking decision to grant precise area, shall issue letter of intent to the applicant to submit mining plan along with progressive mine closure plan to the authorised officer of the State Government for its approval, within a period of three months:

Provided that the competent authority may also seek such other documents as he may deem fit and where the environment clearance is required to be submitted, the period for its submission shall be twelve months.

              Provided further that            the above period may be
        extended by the competent             authority subject to payment
        of late fees at the rate of           6% of annual dead rent for
        every month on part thereof           of such extended period.

(2) An application for renewal of mining lease shall be made at least 12 months before the expiry of the mining lease and shall be disposed of before the expiry of lease and if the application is not disposed of within that period, the lease shall be deemed to have been extended by a further period till final orders are passed on the renewal application by the competent authority.

Provided that the mining lease for mineral bajri, shall not be renewed.

Provided that in the extended period, no mining operation shall be carried out or allowed to be carried out by the lessee till the renewal of mining lease."

17. As noticed above, by virtue of proviso to Rule 3 of the Rules of 2017, anything done or any action taken under the provisions of the Rules of 1986 shall be deemed to have been done or taken under the provisions of the Rules of 2017.However, Rule 89 of the Rules of 2017, which makes the provision for status of the pending applications reads as under:

"Notwithstanding anything contained in these rules, all the pending applications except saved under rule 4 and rule 5, on the date of notification of these rules shall be deemed to have been rejected:

(Downloaded on 27/06/2019 at 10:47:50 PM)

(41 of 66) [CW-2996/2018 Provided that on and after the commencement of these rules, all applications including those rejected under the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1986 or rejected under notification dated 3 rd April 2013 or subsequently restored shall be deemed to have been rejected and such applicant shall have no locus standai under these rules."

18. Thus, all pending applications except saved under Rule 4 and Rule 5 on the commencement of the Rules of 2017, are deemed to be rejected and by virtue of proviso to the said Rule, the right of the applicants whose applications were rejected under the Rules of 1986 or under notification dated 3 rd April, 2013 or subsequently restored are also deemed to have been rejected and their rights to question the same stand ceased.

19. Rule 5 of the Rules of 2017, which deals with rights of the holder of Letter of Intent, the petitioners and their likes to obtain a mining lease, reads as under:

"5. Rights of a holder of letter of intent to obtain a mining lease.-

(1) Where the competent authority has issued a letter of intent before commencement of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation)Amendment Act, 2015 for grant of a mining lease under the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960, notwithstanding anything contained in these rules, such application shall be considered as if received under these rules subject to payment of difference of application fee and premium amount equal to two and half times of the dead rent or as may be prescribed by the Government, from time to time, which shall be payable every year in advance and shall not be adjusted against dead rent or royalty. Such application shall be disposed off by the competent authority as per the provisions of sub-rule (2), (3), (4) and (5) of rule 16:

(1) Where the competent authority has issued a letter of intent before commencement of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Amendment Act, 2015 for grant of a mining lease under the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960, notwithstanding anything contained in these rules, such application shall be considered as if received under these rules subject to payment of difference of application fee and one time premium equal to two and half times of the dead rent which shall be payable in advance and shall not be adjusted against dead rent or royalty. Such application shall (Downloaded on 27/06/2019 at 10:47:50 PM) (42 of 66) [CW-2996/2018 be disposed off by the competent authority as per the provisions of sub-rule (2), (3), (4) and (5) of rule 16:

Provided that where letter of intent has been issued in khatedari land, registered consent deed of khatedar shall be submitted before grant of mining lease, if such consent deed is not submitted the application shall be rejected and applications fees, premium amount and performance security deposited shall be forfeited, after providing an opportunity of being heard by issuing notice of thirty days.

(2) Where the letter of intent has been issued after determining premium through tender or auction under the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1986 notwithstanding anything contained in these rules, such application shall be considered as if received under these rules and shall be disposed off by the competent as per the provisions of sub-rule (2), (3) and (4) of rule 16:

Provided that such letter of intent holder shall deposit remaining amount of premium as per the conditions of notice inviting tender before execution of lease deed.

(2A) Where the letter of intent has been issued through lottery or in khatedari land under the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1986 and the application was deemed rejected as per the provisions of Rule 89 of these rules, notwithstanding anything contained in these rules, such application shall be considered as if received under these rules subject to licence fee which shall be payable in advance and shall not be adjusted against dead rent or royalty or rent. Such application shall be disposed off by the competent authority as per the provisions of rule 16 or by the Mining Engineer or Assistant Mining Engineer concerned as per the provisions of rule 17, as the case may be.

(3) Where it appears that the application is not complete in all material particulars or is not accompanied by the required documents, the competent authority shall reject the application and forfeit the application fees, premium amount and performance security deposited, after providing an opportunity of being heard by issuing notice of thirty days.

(4) All cases covered under this rule shall be protected subject to fulfillment of the conditions of the letter of intent within a period of one year from the date of commencement of these rules and this period of one year shall include execution and registration of mining lease, failing which the right of such applicant shall be forfeited and in such cases, it would not be mandatory for the Government to issue any order in this regard." (Emphasis supplied)

20. As per sub-rule (2) of Rule 5 of the Rules of 2017, the applications wherein LoI has been issued after determining (Downloaded on 27/06/2019 at 10:47:50 PM) (43 of 66) [CW-2996/2018 premium through tender or auction under the Rules of 1986, such applications are considered as if received under the Rules of 2017 and are required to be disposed of by the Competent Authority as per sub-rule (2), (3) & (4) of Rule 16, which reads as under:

"Rule 16. Grant of mining lease.-

(1) Mining lease shall be granted to a person who offers highest premium amount through e-auction subject to provisions of sub-clause (h) of clause (ii) sub-rule(8) of rule

14.

(2) Upon receipt of the first installment of the offered premium amount, the competent authority shall issue a letter of intent to applicant or successful bidder, as the case may be, to,-

(i) pay the second installment being twenty five percent of the minimum guaranteed premium within thirty days from date of issuance of letter of intent.

(ii) furnish the performance security as specified in rule 20 and submits approved mining plan within six months from date of issuance of letter of intent; and

(iii) obtain and submit all consents and approvals as may be required under applicable laws within eighteen months from date of issuance of letter of intent:

Provided that the above period may be extended by the competent authority, subject to payment of late fees at the rate of ten percent of annual dead rent for delay of every month or part thereof for such extended period which shall not be later than three years from the date of issuance of letter of intent.

Provided further that the above period may be further extended for a period of one year by the Government subject to payment of late fees at the rate of ten percent of annual dead rent for delay of every month or part thereof.

Provided also that period of letter of intent, issued before the commencement of these rules, may be extended by the competent authority, subject to payment of late fees at the rate of ten percent of annual dead rent for delay of every month or part thereof for such extended period from the date of issuance of letter of intent.

(3) The area shall be granted by the competent authority, if the applicant or successful bidder, as the case may be, complies with the conditions within the stipulated or extended period of time and applicant or successful bidder, as the case may be, shall be intimated by registered post and e-mail.

(Downloaded on 27/06/2019 at 10:47:50 PM)

(44 of 66) [CW-2996/2018 (4) The applicant or successful bidder, as the case may be, who did not comply with the conditions of letter of intent within the stipulated or extended period of time, the competent authority shall reject the bid and forfeit the application fees, premium amount and performance security deposited, after providing an opportunity of being heard by issuing notice of thirty days.

(5) The applicant or successful bidder, as the case may be, shall pay the third installment being fifty percent of the minimum guaranteed premium before execution of mining lease as per rule 21.

....xxxxxxx........" (emphasis supplied)

21. Precisely, the petitioners herein, who have been issued LoI for grant of mining lease of mineral Bajri, being the successful bidders for the respective mining lease area but mining lease could not be executed in their favour for want of EC, are aggrieved by the provisions of sub-rule (4) of Rule 5, which restricts the time for fulfillment of the conditions of the LoI including execution and registration of mining lease to one year from the date of commencement of the Rules of 2017 and further mandates that on a failure, the rights of the applicants shall be forfeited and in such cases, it would not be mandatory for the Government to issue any order in this regard.

22. Mr. M.S.Singhvi, Senior Advocate, appearing for the petitioners contended that the petitioners herein being successful bidders were granted LoI for the mining lease of Bajri for the area specified under the Rules of 1986 and their rights for disposal of the applications preferred for the grant of mining lease in respect whereof the LoIs were issued in their favour were governed by the provisions of Rule 8 of the Rules of 1986. The first proviso to sub- rule (1) of Rule 8 prescribes period of 12 months to obtain EC, however, the same was extendable by the Competent Authority (Downloaded on 27/06/2019 at 10:47:50 PM) (45 of 66) [CW-2996/2018 subject to payment of late fee at the rate of 6% of annual dead rent for every month or part thereof of such extended period by virtue of second proviso to sub-rule (1) of Rule 8 of the Rules of 1986. Learned counsel submitted that the provision for extension of time was incorporated as the State was aware that grant of EC is in exclusively domain of MoEF and CEC and the LoI holders have no control whatsoever over the same. Learned counsel submitted that despite the petitioners having completed all steps for preparing EIA report, incorporating the public objections pursuant to public hearing, the MoEF after lapse of number of years directed that they require another study to be conducted, which by itself would take time to complete and thus, the action of the State Government in making such rule restricting the time for fulfillment of the conditions of LoI, is absolutely arbitrary, unreasonable and falls foul of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. In support of the contention, learned counsel has drawn our attention to para 87 of decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of "Shayara Bano vs. Union of India", [(2017 (9) SCC 1], which reads as under ;

"87. The thread of reasonableness runs through the entire fundamental rights chapter. What is manifestly arbitrary is obviously unreasonable and being contrary to the rule of law, would violate Article 14. Further, there is an apparent contradiction in the three-Judge Bench decision in McDowell when it is said that a constitutional challenge can succeed on the ground that a law is "disproportionate, excessive or unreasonable", yet such challenge would fail on the very ground of the law being "unreasonable, unnecessary or unwarranted". The arbitrariness doctrine when applied to legislation obviously would not involve the latter challenge but would only involve a law being disproportionate, excessive or otherwise being manifestly unreasonable. All the aforesaid grounds, therefore, do not seek to differentiate between State action in its various forms, all of which (Downloaded on 27/06/2019 at 10:47:50 PM) (46 of 66) [CW-2996/2018 are interdicted if they fall foul of the fundamental rights guaranteed to persons and citizens in Part III of the Constitution."

Learned counsel would submit that under second proviso to sub-rule (1) of Rule 8 of the Rules of 1986, the right of the LoI holders to seek extension of time for fulfillment of the conditions of the LoI which includes the requirement of EC was not restricted to any specified time and thus, sub-rule (4) of Rule 5 of the Rules of 2017 which prescribes outer limit of one year from the date of commencement of the Rules for fulfillment of the conditions of LoI issued in favour of the petitioners under the Rules of 1986, seeks to affect the vested right retrospectively by way of subordinate legislation, deserves to be declared ultra vires. Learned counsel submitted that LoI holders had acquired vested right and it is for this reason alone that for protection of their rights, Rule 5 has been incorporated in the Rules of 2017. Learned counsel submitted that for inaction/omission on the part of the Competent Authority in issuing EC within the stipulated time, the mining lease could not be executed in favour of the LoI holders and thus, the State Authorities cannot be permitted to take advantage of their own wrong. In support of the contention, learned counsel relied upon a decision of this court in the matter of "Shiv Lal vs. The Jalore Central Cooperative Bank Ltd., Jalore & Anr." (D.B.Special Appeal No.303/85 and connected matters, decided on 8.9.1987). Learned counsel urged that the State, a party to the contract, does not permit the matter to be proceeded with and then makes the provision for forfeiture on non fulfillment of the conditions specified within the stipulated time and thus, apparently, the provision incorporated is penal in nature but it does not provide (Downloaded on 27/06/2019 at 10:47:50 PM) (47 of 66) [CW-2996/2018 for any opportunity of hearing to the persons affected and therefore, it being manifestly arbitrary and unreasonable, deserves to be struck down. In support of the contention, learned counsel relied upon decisions of the Supreme Court in the matters of "Hakim Ali vs. Board of Revenue", [(1991) 1 SCC (Suppl.) 565] and "The Labour Contract, Cooperative Society, Palikur Vs. Director of Mines and Geology, Hyderabad and Ors", [(1993) Suppl. (2) SCC 316]. According to the learned counsel, the incorporation of the provision, which is penal in nature is beyond the powers of the rule making authority of the State Government under the provisions of Section 15 of the Act of 1957. Learned counsel submitted that the latest study is requested by MoEF and CEC only in October, 2016, which would take almost one year inasmuch as, the study requires collection of ground data for pre and post monsoon and thus, it was practically impossible for the petitioners to obtain the EC after completion of the process by the Government of India within a period of one year from the commencement of the Rules of 2017 i.e. upto 28.2.2018. Learned counsel submitted that as a matter of fact, Rule 5(4) is clearly repugnant to Rule 5(2) read with Rule 16(2) of the Rules of 2017. Drawing the attention of the court to Rule 5(2), learned counsel submitted that it mandates disposal of the applications in respect whereof the LoI has been issued after determining premium through tender or auction under the Rules of 1986 shall be considered as received under the Rules of 2017 and shall be disposed of by the Competent Authority as per the provisions of sub-rule (2), (3) & (4) of Rule 16. As per Rule 16(2) (iii), the time prescribed to obtain all consents and approvals as may be (Downloaded on 27/06/2019 at 10:47:50 PM) (48 of 66) [CW-2996/2018 required under the applicable laws is 18 months from the date of issuance of the LoI, which by virtue of first proviso to Rule 16(2) is extendable by the Competent Authority subject to payment of late fee at the rate of ten percent of annual dead rent for delay of every month or part thereof for such extended period not exceeding three years from the date of issuance of the LoI, however, by virtue of second proviso to Rule 16(2), it may be further extended for a period of one year by the Government subject to payment of late fee as specified above. But in cases where LoI was issued before the commencement of the Rules of 2017, under third proviso no such time limit regarding extension has been prescribed rather, it is provided that in respect of such LoI, the period may be extended by the Competent Authority subject to payment of late fee at the rate of ten percent of the annual dead rent for delay of every month or part thereof for such extended period from the date of issuance of the LoI and thus, apparently, the provisions of sub-rule (4) of Rule 5 of the Rules run contrary to third proviso to Rule 16(2) of the Rules and renders it nugatory and therefore, the same deserve to be declared ultra vires for this reason alone. Learned counsel submitted that as per sub-rule (2) of Rule 5, where the LoI is issued after determining premium through tender or auction under the Rules of 1986, the application is required to be considered and disposed of as per provisions of sub-rule (2), (3) and (4) of Rule 16 and sub-rule (4) of Rule 16 mandates that the applicant or successful bidder, as the case may be, who did not apply with the condition of the LoI within the stipulated or extended period of time, the Competent Authority shall reject the bid and forfeit the (Downloaded on 27/06/2019 at 10:47:50 PM) (49 of 66) [CW-2996/2018 application fee, premium amount and performance security deposit after providing an opportunity of being heard by issuing notice of thirty days whereas, as per sub-rule (4) of Rule 5, on failure to fulfill the condition of LoI within a period of one year from the date of commencement of the Rules of 2017, the right of such applicant or successful bidder shall stand forfeited and in case it would not be mandatory for the Government to issue any order in this regard. Learned counsel submitted that the opportunity of hearing and passing of an appropriate order is not contemplated under sub-rule (4) of Rule 5 and the applicant's/successful bidder's right shall stand forfeited by operation of law and thus, qua the LoI holders under the Rules of 1986, the provisions of sub-rule (4) of Rule 16, which is though made applicable by sub-rule (2) of Rule 5, cannot be made operative. Similarly, as per sub-rule (3) of Rule 5 of the Rules of 2017, where it appears that the application is not complete in all material particulars or is not accompanied by required documents, the competent authority shall reject the application and forfeit the application fees, premium amount and performance security deposited after providing an opportunity of being heard by issuing notice of thirty days. Thus, according to the learned counsel, the provisions of Rule 5(4), which forfeits the right of the applicant for non-fulfillment of condition of LoI within the stipulated period of one year from the date of commencement of the Rules without giving an opportunity of hearing to the affected LoI holders runs contrary to Rule 5(3) and Rule 16(4) of the Rules of 2017 and renders the same redundant. Learned counsel submitted that an action of the authority having evil and civil consequences must be (Downloaded on 27/06/2019 at 10:47:50 PM) (50 of 66) [CW-2996/2018 preceded by an opportunity of hearing and therefore, forfeiture of the rights of the LoI holders by operation of the Rule 5(4) without giving an opportunity of hearing to them is per se illegal, arbitrary, unreasonable and unjustified, which cannot be countenanced by this Court.

23. The counsels appearing for other petitioners have adopted the arguments advanced by Mr. M.S. Singhvi, learned Senior Advocate.

24. On the other hand, Mr. Rajesh Panwar, learned Additional Advocate General submitted that Rule 5 and particularly, sub-rule (4) of Rule 5 of Rules of 2017 has been brought in force in consonance with Section 10A (2)(c) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (for short "the Act of 1957"), which provides a sunset clause for protecting the LoIs for a period of two years to comply with the conditions stipulated therein. Learned AAG submitted that no new LoIs have been issued after September, 2015 by the State Government and so far as, the LoI holders for mineral Bajri are concerned, they were conducting mining activities through temporary work permit from December, 2013 to November, 2017, for a period of about four years against the mining lease period of five years without fulfilling the conditions like EC and having procured the mining lease. Learned AAG submitted that while giving the details of 13 similarly situated LoI holders who have been able to procure the EC within stipulated time, the petitioners have not given any reason for not being able to procure EC in due time. Learned AAG contended that it is absolutely incorrect to contend that procurement of the EC is not in the hands of the petitioners, to the (Downloaded on 27/06/2019 at 10:47:50 PM) (51 of 66) [CW-2996/2018 contrary, the applicants have an important role to play in grant of EC at various stages. It is submitted that LoI holders have to submit a comprehensive EIA, which is to be prepared by an expert body/organisation to be appointed by LoI holders. Learned AAG submitted that it is also incorrect to state that there is no stipulation of time limit or that grant of EC is solely affair of the respondents. As a matter of fact, notification dated 14.9.2006 issued by MoEF, makes it abundantly clear that there are provisions for time bound clearance at every stage of grant of EC. Learned AAG submitted that it is well settled that procedural amendments shall have retrospective effect and that the grant of mining lease is not a matter of vested or substantive right. In support of the contention, learned AAG relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in the matters of "State of Tamilnadu vs. M/s. Hind Stone & Ors.", (1981) 2 SCC, 205 and "Monnet Ispat and Energy Limited vs. Union of India & Ors.", (2012) 11 SCC, 1. It is submitted that the issue of retrospectivity also stands settled by Jaipur Bench's decision of this court in the matter of "Neta Khandelwal vs. State & Ors." (D.B.Civil Writ Petition No.9049/17 and connected matters) decided vide order dated 11.7.18, whereby, the validity of Rule 89 of the Rules of 2017 was upheld. Learned AAG submitted that more than four and half years have elapsed since issue of LoIs to the petitioners herein, however, they have not been able to fulfill the conditions of LoIs so as to make them entitle to have mining lease of the mining area in question in their favour. Learned AAG submitted that even in respect of the LoI holders applicants or successful bidders, the time prescribed for fulfillment of the conditions does not exceed four years and (Downloaded on 27/06/2019 at 10:47:50 PM) (52 of 66) [CW-2996/2018 thus, nothing turns on the question that the LoI holders under the Rules of 1986 have been extended the period of 13 months for fulfillment of the conditions of the LoI. Learned AAG submitted that the petitioners acquiring LoIs for grant of mining lease on fulfillment of the condition does not create any vested right in their favour and the matter with regard to the grant of mining lease on the strength of LoIs issued under the Rules of 1986 (since repealed) shall be governed by the Rules of 2017. Learned AAG would submit that the issuance of LoIs is not an accrued right for grant of mining lease inasmuch as, the right to mining lease was subject to fulfillment of conditions within the stipulated time. In support of the contention, learned AAG relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of "Gajraj Singh Etc. vs. The State Transport Appellate Tribunal & Ors.", AIR 1997 SC 412. Learned AAG submitted that as a matter of fact, the petitioners want this court to examine the validity of the provisions of Rules of 2017 on the basis of factual aspects and the provisions already repealed, which is not permissible under the law. Learned AAG would submit that the applications of the LoI holders for the grant of mining lease on fulfillment of the conditions of LoIs issued under Rules of 1986 cannot be kept pending even on payment of late fee for the extended period indefinitely and thus, the outer limit of one year provided under sub-rule (4) of Rule 5 of the Rules of 2017 for fulfillment of the conditions of LoI including the execution and registration of mining lease, cannot be said to be unreasonable and arbitrary. Learned AAG would submit that third proviso to Rule 16(2) of the Rules of 2017 has to be read in consonance with sub-rule (4) of Rule 5 of the Rules of 2017 and (Downloaded on 27/06/2019 at 10:47:50 PM) (53 of 66) [CW-2996/2018 thus, the question of extending the period for fulfillment of the conditions of LoI in terms of third proviso to Rule 16(2) does not arise for the period beyond one year from the date of commencement of the Rules and thus, there exists no repugnancy as alleged and sub-rule (4) of Rule 5 and third proviso to Rule 16(2), both remain operative.

25. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record.

26. Indisputably, pursuant to the NIT issued by the State Government being successful bidders for identified lease hold areas of mineral Bajri, LoIs were issued in petitioners' favour under the Rules of 1986 and they were directed to comply with the conditions specified. It is also not in dispute that for execution of mining lease besides other conditions, the submission of EC obtained from MoEF was a pre-requisite condition, which the petitioners failed to obtain and the matter remained pending with MoEF. However, pursuant to interim order dated 25.11.13 passed by the Supreme Court in SLP No.34134/2013, 82 LoI holders, who had applied for EC, were permitted to excavate Bajri in accordance with the notification dated 21.6.12 issued by the State Government under Rule 65 of the Rules of 1986, till the end of February, 2014, which was continued vide order dated 27.3.14 passed by the Supreme Court, till the matter is heard and further order is passed. Later, vide order dated 16.11.17, the Supreme Court restrained all the 82 LoI holders from continuing with the mining operation of sand and Bajri unless replenishment study is completed and the climate change and environment clearance is granted or rejected after full and dispassionate consideration by (Downloaded on 27/06/2019 at 10:47:50 PM) (54 of 66) [CW-2996/2018 MoEF. It is the common ground between the parties that pursuant to the orders passed by the Supreme Court as aforesaid, the petitioners, who were to be granted mining lease for maximum period of five years with no further renewal clause, continued to operate the mining areas for the mineral Bajri for a period of about four years.

27. It is pertinent to note that as per sub-rule (1) of Rule 8 of Rules of 1986, the applicants for grant of mining lease were required to submit mining plan along with progressive mining closure plan to the authorised officer of the State Government for its approval within a period of three months. But by virtue of first proviso to Rule 8(1), the competent authority was empowered to seek such other documents as he may deem fit and where there was requirement of EC to be submitted, the period of submission was prescribed as twelve months, which as per second proviso to Rule 8(1) could have been further extended by the competent authority, subject to payment of late fees at the rate of six percent of annual dead rent for every month or part thereof of such extended period. It is also not disputed before us that after expiry of stipulated period of twelve months, the LoI holders continued to deposit six percent of the annual dead rent in terms of second proviso to Rule 8(1), which was accepted by the competent authority without passing any specific order granting extension.

28. Admittedly, while the petitioners' applications for grant of mining lease were still pending for want of EC, the State Government in exercise of power conferred under Section 15 of the Act of 1957, for grant of quarry licenses, mining leases and other mineral concessions in respect of minor mineral and for the (Downloaded on 27/06/2019 at 10:47:50 PM) (55 of 66) [CW-2996/2018 purpose connected therewith framed the Rules of 2017. By virtue of Rule 3 of the Rules of 2017, the Rules of 1986 stood repealed, however, anything done or any action taken under the provisions of the Rules so repealed, were deemed to have been done or taken under the provisions of Rules of 2017. But then, in respect of the pending application a specific provision was incorporated i.e. Rule 89, whereunder notwithstanding anything contained in the said Rules, all pending applications except saved under Rule 4 and 5, on the date of the notification of the Rules, were deemed to have been rejected. By way of proviso to Rule 89, it was further provided that on or after the commencement of these Rules, all applications including those rejected under the Rules of 1986 or under notification dated 3.4.13 or subsequently restored shall be deemed to have been rejected and such applicants shall have no rights under the Rules of 2017. It is not in dispute that the rights of LoI holders, the petitioners herein, who were issued LoIs for grant of mining lease for mineral Bajari stood protected by virtue of Rule 5 of the Rules of 2017.

29. The petitioners, LoI holders, were the successful bidders at the auction under the Rules of 1986, for minor mineral Bajari and therefore, their pending applications as per mandate of sub-rule (2) of Rule 5 of the Rules of 2017, were required to be considered as if received under the Rules of 2017 and were required to be disposed of by the competent authority as per the provisions of sub-rule(2), (3) and (4) of Rule 16.

30. As per sub-rule (2) of Rule 16, upon receipt of first installment of the offered premium amount, the competent (Downloaded on 27/06/2019 at 10:47:50 PM) (56 of 66) [CW-2996/2018 authority is required to issue LoI to applicant or successful bidder to fulfill following triad conditions within the time stipulated :

(i) pay the second installment being twenty five percent of the minimum guaranteed premium within thirty days from date of issuance of letter of intent;

(ii) furnish the performance security as specified in rule 20 and submits approved mining plan within six months from date of issuance of letter of intent; and

(iii) obtain and submit all consents and approvals as may be required under applicable laws within eighteen months from date of issuance of letter of intent

31. By virtue of first proviso to Rule 16, the above period specified may be extended by the competent authority, subject to payment of late fees at the rate of ten percent of annual dead rent for delay of every month or part thereof for such extended period not later than three years from the date of issuance of letter of intent and by virtue of second proviso to Rule 16, the said period may be further extended for a period of one year by the Government subject to payment of late fees at the rate of ten percent of annual dead rent for delay of every month or part thereof. Thus, a conjoint reading of the main provision of sub-rule (2) of Rule 16 and first and second proviso thereto, makes it abundantly clear that the period of eighteen months from the date of issuance of LoI prescribed to obtain and submit all the consent in terms of the conditions of the LoI issued under Rule 16(2) of the Rules of 2017, can be further extended by the competent authority and the State Government for further period of eighteen months and one year respectively on payment of late fees as (Downloaded on 27/06/2019 at 10:47:50 PM) (57 of 66) [CW-2996/2018 specified. But in no manner, it could be inferred that by virtue of first and second proviso, the LoI holders on depositing the late fees are entitled to claim the extension as a matter of right. Obviously, the discretion vested with the competent authority and the State Government to grant extension of time includes the power to grant or reject the extension of time prayed for.

32. It is not in dispute that the petitioners could not satisfy the condition of LoI within a period of 12 months as prescribed under first proviso to Rule 8(1) of the Rules of 1986, however, their right under the LoI issued was treated to be extended on account of their depositing the late fee in terms of second proviso to Rule 8(1) of the Rules of 1986.

33. A conjoint reading of sub-rule (2) of Rule 5 and Rule 16(2) reflects that the time limit prescribed for completion of fulfillment of the conditions of obtaining and submit all consent and approval, as may be required, would apply to the LoIs issued under the Rules of 1986 as well. But then, in respect of the LoI issued before the commencement of the Rules of 2017, by way of third proviso to sub-rule (2) of Rule 16, it is specifically provided that the period of such LoIs may be extended by the competent authority, subject to payment of late fee at the rate of ten percent of annual dead rent for delay of every month or part thereof for such extended period from the date of issuance of the LoI. However, maximum period of permissible extension as provided for in respect of the LoI issued under sub-rule (2) of Rule 16 of the Rules of 2017, is not envisaged in respect of the LoIs issued before the commencement of the Rules of 2017, possibly for the reason that under sub-rule (4) of Rule 5 in respect of the LoIs covered under (Downloaded on 27/06/2019 at 10:47:50 PM) (58 of 66) [CW-2996/2018 Rule 5, it is specifically provided that such cases shall be protected subject to fulfillment of conditions of LoI within a period of one year, which shall include the execution and registration of the mining lease. In this view of the matter, if Rule 5(4) of the Rules of 2017 prescribing the time limit for fulfillment of the condition of LoI issued under the Rules of 1986 is held to be ultra vires then, the situation would be that in respect of the LoI issued under the Rules of 2017, there would be specified limit for extension of time for fulfillment of the conditions of LoI but in respect of the LoI issued under the Rules of 1986 at any point of time, as in the instant case before four years from the date of commencement of the Rules of 2017, no time limit for extension of time would operate and by virtue of third proviso to Rule 16(2), the extension can be sought on payment of late fee for indefinite period. In our considered opinion, where the maximum time limit for the fulfillment of the condition of LoI subject to payment of late fee has been prescribed in respect of the LoI issued under the Rules of 2017, the LoI holders under the Rules of 1986 whose rights to claim the mining lease on fulfillment of the condition of LoI are protected by carving out an exception to Rule 89 of the Rules of 2017, providing that all applications pending on the date of notification of the Rules of 2017 shall be deemed to have been rejected, cannot claim the extension of time for fulfillment of the conditions of LoI for indefinite period subject to payment of late fee as prescribed. Rule 5(4) providing for the time limit of one year for fulfillment of the condition of LoI issued under the Rules of 1986 protected under Rule 5(4) read with Rule 89 of the Rules of 2017 shall operate and no LoI holder is entitled to claim (Downloaded on 27/06/2019 at 10:47:50 PM) (59 of 66) [CW-2996/2018 extension of time on payment of late fee in terms of third proviso to Rule 16 beyond the period specified under Rule 5(4) of the Rules of 2017. In other words, the right of the LoI holders under the Rules of 1986, to obtain the mining lease on fulfillment of the conditions of LoI specified shall not survive beyond the period specified under Rule 5(4) of the Rules of 2017 with or without extension under third proviso to sub-rule (2) of Rule 16 of the Rules of 2017.

34. The pivotal question which comes for consideration of this Court is, whether the LoI issued in favour of the petitioners herein, the successful bidders, under the Rules of 1986 creates any vested right in their favour, which though protected under Rule 5 (2) of the Rules is adversely affected by Rule 5 (4) restricting the time limit for fulfillment of the conditions of the LoI within a period of one year from the date of commencement of the Rules of 2017 ?

35. Undoubtedly, the LoIs issued in favour of the petitioners by the competent authority demonstrate the intention of the State to grant mining lease subject to fulfillment of the conditions specified. It is not the case of the petitioners before this Court that the conditions of LoIs were fulfilled and only formal lease deed remained to be executed. Rather, it is an admitted case of the petitioners that they could not obtain EC from MoEF, may be, according to them, on account of inaction on the part of authorities of MoEF and therefore, the mining lease could not be executed in their favour.

36. As laid down by Apex Court in 'Dresser Rand S.A. Vs. Bindal Agro Chem Ltd.' AIR 2006 SC 871, a letter of intent merely (Downloaded on 27/06/2019 at 10:47:50 PM) (60 of 66) [CW-2996/2018 indicates a party's intention to enter into contract with other party in future. A letter of intent is not intended to bind either party ultimately to enter into a contract.

37. The view taken in Dresser Rand's case (supra) was reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of "Rishi Khan Logistics Private Ltd. Vs. Board of Trustees of Kandla Port Trust", (2015) 13 SCC 233.

38. The nature of the right created under LoI issued and the consequences of non-fulfillment of the conditions contained therein for undue long time is considered by the Supreme Court in the matter of "Bhushan Power and Steel Limited Vs. S.L. Seal & Ors.", 2017 (2) SCC 125. The Court held :

"40. It is no doubt true that a letter of intent may be construed as a letter of acceptance if such intention is evident from its terms. It is not uncommon in contracts involving detailed procedure, in order to save time, to issue a letter of intent communicating the acceptance of the offer and asking the contractor to start the work with a stipulation that the detailed contract would be drawn up later. If such a letter is issued to the contractor, though it may be termed as a letter of intent, it may amount to acceptance of the offer resulting in a concluded contract between the parties. But the question whether the letter of intent is merely an expression of an intention to place an order in future or whether it is a final acceptance of the offer thereby leading to a contract, is a matter that has to be decided with reference to the terms of the letter.

When the LoI is itself hedged with the condition that the final allotment would be made later after obtaining CRZ and other clearances, it may depict an intention to enter into contract at a later stage. Thus, we find that on the facts of this case it appears that a letter with intention to enter into a contract which could take place after all other formalities are completed. However, when the completion of these formalities had taken undue long time and the prices of land, in the interregnum, shot up sharply, the Respondent had a right to cancel the process which had not resulted in a concluded contract."

(emphasis supplied) (Downloaded on 27/06/2019 at 10:47:50 PM) (61 of 66) [CW-2996/2018

39. In "State of Tamilnadu vs. M/s. Hind Stone & Ors.", (1981) 2 SCC 205, relied upon by the learned AAG appearing for the State, wherein the applications preferred seeking renewal of the mining lease were kept pending for a long time and later rejected on the strength of the Rule 8C inserted in Tamilnadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959, imposing restriction on grant of the lease for quarry black granite to the private persons, while dealing with the contention of the lease holders regarding their vested right for renewal of the lease, the Apex Court held:

"13. Another submission of the learned counsel in connection with the consideration of applications for renewal was that applications made sixty days or more before the date of G.O. Ms. No.1312 (December 2, 1977) should be dealt with as if Rule 8-C had not come into force. It was also contended that even applications for grant of leases made long before the date of G.O. Ms. No.1312 should be dealt with as if Rule 8-C had not come into force. The submission was that it was not open to the government to keep applications for the grant of leases and applications for renewal pending for a long time and then to reject them on the basis of Rule 8-C notwithstanding the fact that the applications had been made long prior to the date on which Rule 8-C came into force. While it is true that such applications should be dealt with within a reasonable time, it cannot on that account be said that the right to have an application disposed of in a reasonable time clothes an applicant for a lease with a right to have the application disposed of on the basis of the rules in force at the time of the making of the application. No one has a vested right to the grant or renewal of a lease and none can claim a vested right to have an application for the grant of renewal of a lease dealt with in a particular way, by applying particular provisions. In the absence of any vested rights in anyone, an application for a lease has necessarily to be dealt with according to the rules in force on the date of the disposal of the application despite the fact that there is a long delay since the making of the application. We are, therefore, unable to accept the submission of the learned counsel that applications for the grant of renewal of leases made long prior to the date of G.O. Ms. No.1312 should be dealt with as if Rule 8-C did not exist." (emphasis supplied)

40. In Neta Khandelwal's case (supra), the Division Bench of this Court at Jaipur while dealing with the issue as to whether the (Downloaded on 27/06/2019 at 10:47:50 PM) (62 of 66) [CW-2996/2018 registration of application and grant of consent letter results in existing and vested rights, observed that the existing or vested right can be drawn only when mining leases have already been granted or right is saved by provisions of law and not otherwise. The Court categorically held that the provisions of Rule 89 of the Rules of 2017 which rejects all pending applications except those specifically saved under Rule 4 and Rule 5 of the Rules of 2017, cannot be said to be retrospective in nature.

41. In the backdrop of the position of law settled as above, adverting to the facts of the present case, undoubtedly, the LoI issued was only an expression of the State to grant the mining lease in favour of the petitioners on fulfillment of the conditions specified, which includes the condition of obtaining EC. But then, none of the petitioners had obtained the EC prior to commencement of the Rules of 2017 or even thereafter and thus, no concluded contract had come into existence between the parties. Admittedly, as many as 13 LoI holders were issued EC by the MoEF on fulfillment of the requisite conditions and thus, without there being the complete foundation of facts in this regard, the contention of the petitioners that the delay in issuing the EC was solely attributed to the respondents, cannot be accepted. As discussed above, the petitioners, LoI holders, neither under second proviso to Rule 8(1) of the Rules of 1986 nor under third proviso to Rule 16(2) could have claimed the extension of time for fulfillment of the conditions specified under LoI as a matter of right inasmuch as, the power of the competent authority under the said rules while considering the prayer for extension includes the authority to reject the extension prayed for as well. (Downloaded on 27/06/2019 at 10:47:50 PM)

(63 of 66) [CW-2996/2018 In any case, keeping in view the position of law settled as above, we are firmly of the opinion that issuance of the LoIs in favour of the petitioners expressing the intention of the State Government to grant mining lease in their favour, do not create any vested right which stands adversely affected on account of the period for fulfillment of the conditions specified under the LoIs being restricted to one year from the date of commencement of the Rules of 2017. The petitioners cannot claim extension of time for fulfillment of the conditions for indefinite period as a matter of right and the State cannot be compelled to keep the applications pending till the EC is actually granted or rejected by the MoEF. In this view of the matter, the provisions as incorporated in Rule 5 (4) of the Rules of 2017 restricting the right of the LoI holders to claim the mining lease in their favour on fulfillment of the conditions specified protected under sub-rule (2) of Rule 5, for a period of one year from the date of commencement of the Rules of 2017 cannot be said to be arbitrary and unreasonable so as to fall foul of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

42. Coming to the second part of sub-rule (4) of Rule 5 of the Rules of 2017, which provides that on failure of the applicant, LoI holder, to fulfill the conditions of LoI within a period of one year from the date of commencement of the Rules including the execution and registration of the mining lease, his right shall be forfeited and it would not be mandatory for the Government to issue any order in this regard. A plain reading of the provisions of Rule 5(4) juxtaposition with Rule 5(2) of the Rules makes it abundantly clear that the forfeiture of the right under Rule 5(4) refers to the right of the LoI holders protected under Rule 5(2) of (Downloaded on 27/06/2019 at 10:47:50 PM) (64 of 66) [CW-2996/2018 the Rules and thus, by virtue of Rule 5(4), the applicant who fails to fulfill the conditions of LoI within the stipulated period of one year from the date of commencement of the Rules, his right for consideration of his application as per the provisions of sub-rule (2) of Rule 5 of the Rules of 2017, shall stand forfeited. The forfeiture of the right of the applicant protected under Rule 5(2) for consideration and disposal of the application for grant of mining lease, in no manner indicates that as a consequence of forfeiture of the right as aforesaid shall entail forfeiture of the application fee, premium amount and performance security deposited automatically. Rather, by virtue of provisions of sub-rule (3) of Rule 5 and sub-rule (4) of Rule 16 on account of non fulfillment of the conditions of LoI within the stipulated period, the matter with regard to forfeiture of the application fee, premium amount and performance security deposited has to be decided by the competent authority after providing an opportunity of being heard by issuing notice of thirty days. Obviously, while extending an opportunity of hearing, the submission of the applicant with regard to the reasons for failure to fulfill the conditions have to be dealt with by the competent authority appropriately while taking a decision in terms of sub-rule (3) of Rule 5 of the Rules or sub-rule (4) of Rule 16 of the Rules of 2017. In this view of the matter, in our considered opinion, the contention of the counsel for the petitioners that the provisions of Rule 5(4) runs contrary to the provisions of sub-rule (3) of Rule 5 and sub-rule (4) of Rule 16 of the Rules of 2017 and renders the said provisions redundant, is also devoid of any merit.

(Downloaded on 27/06/2019 at 10:47:50 PM)

(65 of 66) [CW-2996/2018

43. In view of the discussion above, Rule 5(4) of the Rules of 2017 deserves to be declared constitutionally valid and the writ petitions deserve to be dismissed.

44. At this stage, it would be appropriate to notice that in some of the matters, the legality of the orders passed by the competent authority are questioned but not on the grounds other than the vires of the provisions of Rule 5(4) of the Rules of 2017 and therefore, this court is not examining the legality of the orders passed, if any, in the matters of individual petitioners by the competent authority and if the petitioners have any grievance regarding any order passed by the competent authority, directing forfeiture of the application money etc., they will be at liberty to question the legality of the said order on all available grounds by availing the appropriate remedy available under the law.

45. For the aforementioned reasons, the vires of sub-rule (4) of Rule 5 of the Rules of 2017 is upheld. The right of the petitioners herein, the LoI holders, under the Rules of 1986, who have failed to fulfill the conditions of LoI within the time specified under sub- rule (4) of Rule 5 of the Rules of 2017, to claim consideration and disposal of their application for grant of mining lease in terms of sub-rule (2) of Rule 5 read with sub-rule (2), (3) and (4) of Rule 16 of the Rules of 2017, shall stand closed. However, the matter with regard to the forfeiture of the application fee etc. on account of failure to fulfill the conditions of LoI within the stipulated or extended period shall be considered by the competent authority in accordance with the provisions of sub-rule (3) of Rule 5 or sub- rule (4) of Rule 16 of the Rules of 2017 as the case may be, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners herein. (Downloaded on 27/06/2019 at 10:47:50 PM)

(66 of 66) [CW-2996/2018 Needless to say that if aggrieved by the order to be passed by the competent authority under sub-rule (3) of Rule 5 or sub-rule (4) of Rule 16 of the Rules of 2017, the petitioners shall be at liberty to question the legality thereof by availing an appropriate remedy available under the law.

46. The writ petitions are, therefore, dismissed with the observations as above. No order as to costs.

                                    (DINESH MEHTA),J                                           (SANGEET LODHA),J



                                   Aditya/




                                                            (Downloaded on 27/06/2019 at 10:47:50 PM)




Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)

Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur