Prior excavation of minerals permits dispatch despite ongoing restrictions on mining activities; obligations under the existing lease remain enforceable.

ORDER :

KULDEEP MATHUR, J.

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 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 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