JUDGMENT

Sangeet Lodha, J. - 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 of 18, preferred by Bajri LoI Holders Welfare Society espousing the cause of its members, which was argued, as lead case before us.

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 v. 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( 35 of 66) [CW-2996 of 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 S