Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
M/S Pusalal Mansinghka Pvt. Ltd vs The State Of Rajasthan ... on 12 July, 2025
Author: Dinesh Mehta
Bench: Dinesh Mehta
[2025:RJ-JD:30424] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7395/2025 M/s Pusalal Mansinghka Pvt. Ltd., Pusa Niwas, Bhilwara, Through Its Director Shri Ashish Mansinghka S/o Shankar Prasad Mansinghka, Aged About 59 Years, Resident Of Pusa Niwas, Kashipuri Bhilwara (Rajasthan).
----Petitioner Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary To The Government Of Rajasthan, Mines Department, Jaipur.
2. Union Of India, Through The Secretary, Ministry Of Mines, 3Rd Floor A Wing, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi 110001.
3. The Director, Mines And Geological Department, Udaipur.
4. The Mining Engineer, Bhilwara.
----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vikas Balia, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Arvind Vyas (Shrimali) For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mahaveer Bishnoi, AAG assisted by Mr. Gaurav Bishnoi JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA Order 12/07/2025
1. By way of present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 27.03.2025, whereby the mining lease which had been renewed/extended by the respondent No.4 - Mining Engineer, Bhilwara has been canceled/revoked.
2. The facts relevant for the case in hands are that the petitioner is/was having mining lease being M.L.No.18/1991 for the three minerals - Felspar, Mica and Quartz near village Ghodas, Tehsil Mandal, District Bhilwara.
3. When the period of mining lease was over, the petitioner applied for renewal/extension. The renewal/extension was granted by the respondent No.4 vide order dated 14.01.2025 in (Downloaded on 14/07/2025 at 09:41:33 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:30424] (2 of 5) [CW-7395/2025] furtherance whereof a Supplementary Agreement was executed between the petitioner and the respondent - State on 15.01.2025. The Rajasthan State Pollution Control Board vide its order dated 13.02.2025 has also granted consent to operate the mining lease in favour of the petitioner.
4. The respondent No.4 by order dated 27.03.2025 abruptly canceled/revoked the order granting renewal of the mining lease and declared the Supplementary Agreement to be null and void in terms of Rule 75 of the Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as 'Rules of 2017'). The same was done essentially in light of the order dated 09.05.2024 passed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Writ Petition(s) (Civil) No.4677/1985: M.C. Mehta Vs. Union of India & Ors.
5. While maintaining that the order impugned is against the principles of natural justice, Mr. Balia, learned Senior Counsel argued that even on merit, if the order dated 09.05.2024 passed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court is read in its entirety with the subsequent order dated 27.05.2025, it leaves no room for ambiguity that so far as processing of application for mining lease and the renewal of pre-existing mining lease is concerned, there was no embargo; what has been prohibited by Hon'ble the Supreme Court is the grant of fresh mining lease and not the renewal of existing mining lease.
6. While emphasizing that the petitioner's case is for extension of the mining lease and not for grant of fresh mining lease or renewal, learned counsel submitted that in petitioner's case even leave of Hon'ble the Supreme Court is not required. (Downloaded on 14/07/2025 at 09:41:33 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:30424] (3 of 5) [CW-7395/2025]
7. In any case, without prejudice to the aforesaid submissions, he submitted that the Mining Engineer was not justified in declaring the extension order dated 14.01.2025 and the Supplementary Agreement dated 15.01.2025 to be null and void.
8. He argued that respondent No.4 has completely misread the order passed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court and thus, the order impugned dated 27.03.2025 deserves to be quashed and set aside.
9. Mr. Mahaveer Bishnoi, learned Additional Advocate General, on the other hand, submitted that the action of the Mining Engineer cannot be said to be illegal, as there is an embargo on the mining activities. He added that when the mining activities are not permissible, then it makes no difference as to whether mining lease is continued/extended/renewed or not.
10. In rejoinder, Mr. Balia, learned Senior Counsel submitted that State's objection is hyper-technical, inasmuch as if the petitioner's mining lease is not extended or renewed, he would not be in a position to even apply for the permission to excavate either before this Court or before Hon'ble the Supreme Court.
11. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, including the order dated 09.05.2024 so also the subsequent order dated 27.05.2025 passed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court.
12. Para Nos. 13 and 14 of the order dated 09.05.2024, passed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court are reproduced hereunder:- (Downloaded on 14/07/2025 at 09:41:33 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:30424] (4 of 5) [CW-7395/2025]
"13. In that view of the matter, to balance the competing interest, we find that the following direction would subserve the purpose:-
Until further orders, though all the States in which Aravalli Ranges and Hills are situated would be at liberty to consider and process the applications for grant of mining leases and also for renewal thereof including obtaining statutory clearances from the various authorities, no final permission shall be granted for mining in the Aravalli Hills/Ranges, as defined in the FSI Report dated 25.08.2010, without permission from this Court.
14. Needless to state that this order in no way shall be construed as prohibiting the legal mining activities which are being carried out in accordance with the valid permits/licences."
13. If the order dated 09.05.2024, more particularly para Nos. 13 and 14 reproduced hereinabove are read conjointly, it is apparent that Hon'ble the Supreme Court has restrained the State Governments where the Aravali Ranges and Hills are spread, from granting fresh mining lease and the renewal thereof.
14. But if the para No.14 thereof is read, it is clear that Hon'ble the Supreme Court has made it abundantly clear that such order shall in no way be construed to be prohibiting the legal mining activities which are being carried out in accordance with valid permits/license.
15. It is not in dispute that the petitioner's mining lease had a life upto 31.03.2025 and by the order dated 14.01.2025, a supplementary agreement was executed on 15.01.2025 and the lease was extended for a further period of 15 years. (Downloaded on 14/07/2025 at 09:41:33 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:30424] (5 of 5) [CW-7395/2025]
16. According to this Court, the petitioner - Company was having a kicking right at least for extension/revival of the mining lease even in terms of the order of Hon'ble the Supreme Court. Therefore, revocation of the grant of extension of the mining lease and declaring the Supplementary Agreement dated 15.01.2025 to be null and void is totally in the teeth of the order of Hon'ble the Supreme Court referred hereinabove, apart from being contrary to the principles of natural justice.
17. The writ petition is, therefore, allowed.
18. The impugned order dated 27.03.2025 passed by the respondent No.4 - Mining Engineer, Bhilwara is quashed and set aside and the order of renewal of the mining lease dated 14.01.2025 and the Supplementary Agreement dated 15.01.2025 are restored.
19. The Mining Engineer shall consider the order of Hon'ble the Supreme Court and pass appropriate order after providing opportunity of hearing, in case he feels that the petitioner cannot win the mineral.
20. If he comes to a conclusion that the petitioner cannot excavate the mineral, he shall pass a reasoned order against which petitioner's right to take appropriate legal remedy shall stand reserved.
21. The stay application also stands disposed of, accordingly.
(DINESH MEHTA),J 160-akansha/-
(Downloaded on 14/07/2025 at 09:41:33 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)