Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Mahesh Mantri vs The State Of Rajasthan ... on 10 September, 2025
Author: Kuldeep Mathur
Bench: Kuldeep Mathur
[2025:RJ-JD:40474]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10225/2025
Mahesh Mantri S/o Sh. Sukhlal Mantri, Aged About 72 Years, R/o
01, Panchvati, Road No. 1, Udaipur, Rajasthan, Through His
Power Of Attorney Holder Sh. Saurabh Mantri S/o Sh. Mahesh
Mantri, Aged About 43 Years, Resident Of Behind Baba Art
Galary, 1 Panchwati, Udaipur.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary,
Department Of Mines And Geology, Secretariat, Jaipur,
Rajasthan.
2. Mining Engineer, Department Of Mines And Geology,
Rajsamand District, Rajasthan.
3. Rajasthan State Pollution Control Board, Through The
Regional Officer, Rajsamand District, Rajasthan.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Muktesh Maheshwari
Mr. Gaurav Ranka
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Gaurav Bishnoi for
Mr. Mahaveer Bishnoi, AAG
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR
ORDER
10/09/2025
1. The instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioners seeking the following reliefs:-
"It is, therefore, humbly and respectfully prayed that writ petition of the petitioner may kindly be allowed and:-
A. Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to consider and decide the petitioner's application dated 13.01.2025 (Anx. 3) for extension of the mining lease bearing M.L. No. 01/88 situated at Village Achchi Bavdi, Tehsil Delwada, District Rajsamand, Rajasthan, strictly in accordance with law and in light of Rule 9(3A) of the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession (Uploaded on 14/09/2025 at 11:52:21 AM) (Downloaded on 15/09/2025 at 09:44:23 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:40474] (2 of 7) [CW-10225/2025] Rules, 2017, and to pass a reasoned and speaking order within a time-bound period as may be fixed by this Hon'ble Court;
B. Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to forthwith conduct physical verification of the mineral stock, i.e., 10,331 metric tonnes of soapstone and 76,799.78 metric tonnes of dolomite, as declared by the petitioner in the Form-15 monthly return for March 2025;
C. Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to immediately reactivate the e-Ravana system on the departmental portal and permit the dispatch and transportation of the aforesaid minerals excavated during the lawful lease period prior to 31.03.2025;
D. Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction declaring that the order dated 09.04.2024 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in WP (C) No. 4677/1985 (MC Mehta v. UOI) does not create any bar on the dispatch of already excavated minerals stored within the leasehold area, and directing the respondents not to withhold permissions for such dispatch under the guise of the said order;
E. Award costs of the petition in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents;
F. Pass such other and further orders as may be deemed just, fit, and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice."
2. Brief facts of the present case are that the petitioner is the owner of a mine (M.L. No.01/88) situated at Village Achibavri, Tehsil Delwada, District Rajsamand. The petitioner has been mining Soapstone and Dolomite minerals in accordance with the Rules provided under Rajasthan Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules of 2017') and the mining lease of the petitioner is extended until 31.03.2025.
3. On 13.01.2025, the petitioner moved an application (Annexure-3) before the respondents seeking extension of mining lease No.01/1988 for minor mineral Soapstone, Dolomite. The respondent - department vide letter dated 27.03.2025 (Annexure-
4) stated that any grant/renewal/extension of mining lease would (Uploaded on 14/09/2025 at 11:52:21 AM) (Downloaded on 15/09/2025 at 09:44:23 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:40474] (3 of 7) [CW-10225/2025] only be considered subject to the conditions mentioned in the order dated 09.05.2024 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Writ Petition(s) (Civil) No.4677/1985: "M.C. Mehta v. Union of India & Ors." and also directed the petitioner to submit requisite documents in compliance of Rule 9(3A)(i) to (iv)10(3A)
(i) to (iii) of the Rules of 2017 for considering and processing the application. Thereafter, the petitioner suspended the mining work from 01.04.2025 pursuant to the letter dated 27.03.2025. The respondent department shut the e-ravana system on the departmental portal for the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner is unable to move the already extracted minerals to the tune of 10331.00 metric tons of mineral Soapstone and 76799.79 metric tons of mineral Dolomite.
4. Being aggrieved, the petitioner again submitted a representation dated 25.04.2025 before the respondent - department to conduct a physical verification of the stock of abovementioned minerals and get the e-ravana system operated on the departmental website for release of the lying minerals.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that refusal from the respondent - department to operate e-ravana portal for dispatch of excavated minerals would cause severe and irreparable financial loss to the petitioner and decay in quality of those excavated minerals.
6. Learned counsel vehemently submitted that the stipulation given in the order dated 09.05.2024 as subsequently modified by the order dated 27.05.2025 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court only puts an embargo on excavation or mining the minerals and (Uploaded on 14/09/2025 at 11:52:21 AM) (Downloaded on 15/09/2025 at 09:44:23 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:40474] (4 of 7) [CW-10225/2025] on grant of final lease or renewal of mining lease in Aravalli Hills/Ranges without prior permission of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. However, it does not, in any manner, prevent the State Department to allow disposal or transportation of minerals that have already been excavated before expiry of mining leasehold.
7. On these grounds, learned counsel implored the Court with a limited prayer that the petitioner be allowed to operate e-ravana system to dispatch and transport the excavated stock of minerals extracted before expiry of the mining lease lying at the mining site.
8. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that after receipt of petitioner's application dated 15.05.2025, the Mines Foreman inspected the site on 20.05.2025 and submitted a report before the respondent - Department, and according to which, 10331 metric tons of mineral Soapstone and 76800 metric tons of mineral Dolomite is lying at the mining lease site. Learned counsel further submitted that as per the provision of Rule 28(1)(xxi) of the Rules of 2017, the period of three months from the expiry of mining lease has passed and therefore, the e-ravana system could not be operated by the petitioner.
9. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that since the actions of the respondent - department are in conformity with the Rule 28(1)(xxi) of the Rules of 2017 and order dated 09.05.2024 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, therefore, the instant writ petitioner is without any merit and deserves dismissal by this Court.
(Uploaded on 14/09/2025 at 11:52:21 AM) (Downloaded on 15/09/2025 at 09:44:23 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:40474] (5 of 7) [CW-10225/2025]
10. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record including orders dated 09.05.2024 and 27.05.2025 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.
11. Para Nos.13 and 14 of the order dated 09.05.2024 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of M.C. Mehta (supra) are reproduced hereinbelow for ready reference: -
"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 25.08.20210, without permission of this Court.
14. Needless to state that this order in no way shall be construed as prohobiting the legal mining activities which are being carried out in accordance with the valid permits/licences."
12. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, this Court finds that though, in the writ petition, the petitioner has also prayed for extension of mining lease, but during the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioner has not joined the issue on merit in that regard and has only limited his submissions and prayer to reactivation of e-ravana system by the respondents.
13. This Court is of opinion that so far as the above referred orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court are concerned, they restrain the State Government from allowing mining activities and issuing final order permitting mining lease holder to carry out excavation (Uploaded on 14/09/2025 at 11:52:21 AM) (Downloaded on 15/09/2025 at 09:44:23 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:40474] (6 of 7) [CW-10225/2025] of the minerals, however, there is no impediment in allowing the leaseholder to dispatch and transport the excavated minerals which have been extracted before the expiry of mining lease, subject of course to the final order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
14. The Rule 28(1)(xxi) of the Rules of 2017 clearly states that if at the end of three calendar months after the expiry of the mining lease or licence, any minerals, machinery, engines, plants, building structures, tramways, railways and other work or property which are not required by the lessee or licencee, the same shall, if not removed by the lessee or licencee within one calendar month of being notified to do so by the Government, be deemed to become the property of the Government.
15. It is pertinent to note here that the petitioner requested the respondent - department on 25.04.2025 (Annexure-6) to get e- ravana operated on the departmental website for release of the lying stock of minerals, which is within the stipulated period of time provided in the Rule 28(1)(xxi) of the Rules of 2017 and the learned counsel for the respondent - department could not produce any document regarding notice given to the petitioner under Rule 28(1)(xxi) of the Rules of 2017 to remove the minerals, machinery, engines, plants, building structures, tramways, railways and other work or property. Therefore, the petitioner is well within his rights to dispatch and transport the minerals excavated before expiry of the mining lease.
16. In view of the above and the limited prayer made by the petitioner, this writ petition is partly allowed and while directing the respondent - department to reactivate the e-ravana system (Uploaded on 14/09/2025 at 11:52:21 AM) (Downloaded on 15/09/2025 at 09:44:23 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:40474] (7 of 7) [CW-10225/2025] on the departmental portal and permit the dispatch and transportation of the minerals excavated before expiry of mining lease of the petitioner as per the report of the Mines Foreman dated 20.05.2025 within a period of three months from the date of the instant order.
17. All pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
(KULDEEP MATHUR),J 73-himanshu/-
(Uploaded on 14/09/2025 at 11:52:21 AM) (Downloaded on 15/09/2025 at 09:44:23 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)