RAJESH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the parties. The petitioners were granted mining leases on both the sides of 'brij chorasi parikrima'. The State Government, vide its order dated 27th January, 2005 (Annexure -2) took a decision to cancel the said mining leases after notice to concerned persons. In pursuance of that order the Mining Engineer, Bharatpur, vide its order dated 4th February, 2005, directed the petitioners to stop the mining activities within 500 meters on both sides of 'brij chorasi parikrima'. Being aggrieved with the same, the petitioners gave a representation to the Minister of Mines Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur (Annexure -4) and when nothing was done on the said representation then the present writ petition was preferred by the petitioners with a prayer to quash the orders dated 27th January, 2005 and 4th February, 2005 and, in alternative, to direct the respondents to immediately allow alternative mining area/lease.

(2.) A notice to show -cause was given to the respondents of the writ petition and, in pursuance thereto, the respondents have filed their reply to the writ petition. In para 5 of the reply it is stated that the letter dated 4th February, 2005 was issued in pursuance of the Government order dated 27th January, 2005, which was also issued as per the decision taken by the State Government on the recommendation of the Committee, which inspected the site and submitted its report. The Committee appointed by the State Government, made its recommendations that the mining operations should be stopped within the parameters of 500 meters of both the sides of the 'parikrima way' In para 7 of the reply, it is further contended that the petitioners have submitted their representations and, after considering the same, the State Government has constituted the Committee to consider the cases of rehabilitation of the existing mining lease holders vide its order dated 17th March, 2006 (Annexure -R/1) and the said Committee has already submitted its report to the State Government for its consideration.

(3.) THE learned Additional Government Counsel, appearing on behalf of the respondents, contended that the order dated 17th March, 2006 was passed about two years ago, therefore, he is not aware about the present position of the case but he assures that in case the needful has not been done so far for rehabilitation of the petitioners then the steps will be taken within a reasonable time and for that purpose he prays for three months time.