BIKRAMJIT SINGH BAKSH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The controversy involved in both the writ petitions is common and, therefore, the same are being decided by this common order, however, the facts of SBCWP No. 12721/2025 are being taken illustratively. The petitioner has preferred the instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking following relief(s):-

(2.) Briefly, stated facts are that the petitioner is the holder of a mining lease for minor mineral Rhyolite, situated near village Kaaga, Jodhpur. The said mining lease was originally granted in favour of the petitioner's father vide Mining Lease No. 172/89 on 21/11/1990. Upon the demise of his father, the lease was duly transferred in favour of the petitioner by order dtd. 19/9/2012, followed by execution of a rider agreement. Subsequently, by operation of law, the lease period stood extended up to 16/3/2025 through a supplementary agreement dtd. 1/8/2019. The petitioner was also operating a stone crushing unit on an industrial plot allotted by the erstwhile Urban Improvement Trust, Jodhpur.

(3.) For renewal of Environmental Clearance ('EC') of the stone crushing unit, the petitioner was required to obtain demarcation of the mining lease area. Accordingly, he applied for demarcation and, upon direction of the respondent Department, deposited the requisite demarcation fee of Rs.15,000.00 in February 2022. Despite issuance of repeated directions by the Mining Engineer to the concerned official for conducting demarcation, and despite several written reminders by the petitioner highlighting the financial losses suffered due to non-operation of the mine and stone crushing unit, no demarcation was carried out. The prolonged inaction of the respondent authorities rendered the mining operations and the stone crushing unit inoperative, causing recurring economic loss to the petitioner.