SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Raj) 699

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA, CJ, SHUBHA MEHTA, J.
M/s Galaxy Mining And Royalties Private Limited - Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary, Department Of Mines And Geology - Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1760 of 2026
Decided On : 28-04-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Sandeep Singh Shekhawat with Mr. Chandra Vikram Singh, Mr. Akshay Dutt Sharma
For the Respondent: Mr. Vigyan Shah, AAG with Mr. Priyam Agrawal, Ms. Monisha Agrawal

Where the validity of a mineral concession rule is sub-judice before a higher court, the court may direct the acceptance of a bank guarantee to secure disputed fiscal demands arising from periods of operational stoppage, ensuring compliance with future judicial mandates.

Headnote:(A) Mining Regulations - Provision regarding minor mineral concessions - Writ petition challenging the validity of rules - Interim relief - Direction for acceptance of bank guarantee for periods of operational stoppage - Utilization of security subject to final determination by the higher judicial forum. (Paras 1, 2, 3)

(B) Interim Protection - Matters pending before higher court - Principles regarding security for disputed fiscal demands - Direction to accept bank guarantee to secure claims arising during periods of industrial unrest - Such security to remain subject to the outcome of pending litigation. (Paras 8, 9)

Facts of the case:
A corporate entity challenged the validity of specific administrative rules governing mineral concessions. The administrative authorities sought a review of a previous order that restrained any coercive actions. It was observed that there was a period of operational stoppage due to industrial unrest. The petitioner offered to provide bank guarantees corresponding to the disputed demands arising during these specific periods in exchange for the release of withheld, relevant documentation.

Findings of Court:
The court observed that the core legality of the regulations remains a subject of examination before the higher judicial forum. Balancing the interests of the authorities with the operational viability of the entity, the court determined that the acceptance of a bank guarantee is an appropriate measure to secure the demands while awaiting final adjudication from the supreme judicial authority.

Issues: Whether the court should grant interim protection or permit recovery of demands during a period of industrial unrest when the validity of the governing rule is currently pending before a higher judicial forum.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the underlying validity of a regulatory provision is sub-judice, requiring a bank guarantee ensures that the administrative body's interests are financially secured without imposing undue hardship on the entity, provided the utility of such security remains contingent upon the final orders of the higher court.

Result: Writ petition disposed of; directions issued for the submission and acceptance of bank guarantees for the specified periods of disputed demands.

Table of Content
1. adoption of existing precedent for consistency in litigation. (Para 1 , 2)
2. acceptance of bank guarantee for contested mining dues. (Para 3 , 4)

ORDER :

1. This is a writ petition challenging the Vires of Rule 44 (16) of the Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2017.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for disposal of the writ petition in view of the order passed by this Court in the case State of Rajasthan & Ors. Vs. M/s. Galaxy Mining Private Limited (D.B. Review Petition (Writ) No.29/2026, dated 17.04.2026), which reads as under:

“1. A Civil Misc. Application No.140/2026 has been filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay in filing the present review petition.

2. For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed and the delay of 77 days in filing the present review petition is condoned.

3. The review petition has been filed by the State seeking review of the order passed on 04.09.2025 whereby this Court, while noting that the vires of Rule 44(16) of the Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2017 is under challenge and the same is also pending before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in relation to mining of Bajri, passed an order restraining the respondents from taking any coercive steps against the writ petitioner till the disposal of the Civil Appeal No.3604-3605/2018.

4. The State has filed this review petition stating that although the Rule 44(16) of the Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2017 is under challenge but it is not in relation, to mining of Bajri and, therefore, the order dated 04.09.2025 deserves to be reviewed/recalled.

5. Learned counsel submits that the amount which is being claimed is as per the enhancement of the rates calculated as per the formula laid down under Rule 36(4) of the Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2017 and, therefore, this Court ought to have looked into this aspect before disposing of the writ petition and restraining the State from taking any coercive steps.

6. Learned counsel further submits that although the mining operations were halted on account of strike during the said relevant period but there were three e-Rawannas also for that intervening period during which the strike had taken place and the offer of the writ petitioner to submit a bank guarantee for the amount claimed for the said intervening period, cannot be accepted.

7. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that he has instructions to state that the bank guarantee would be submitted for the amount claimed by the authorities and the documents which are withheld by the State may be released.

8. We have considered the submissions and found that the order dated 04.09.2025 was passed after hearing the learned counsels for both the parties and it was neither brought to the knowledge about the nature of mining nor we have given any notice to the said aspect. The only aspect we have noticed is that the Rule 44(16) of the Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2017 is under challenge and is a subject matter of the examination by the Supreme Court in an SLP. However, the new facts which are being sought to be urged by the State have been noted. Even then, we find that the State too admits that there was strike during the period for which the demands were raised, the other demands have already been satisfied.

9. We direct that a bank guarantee may be accepted for the intervening period of the demand raised from 02.08.2025 to 19.08.2025 and if such a bank guarantee is given, the same shall be accepted and shall be utilized only as per the orders passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

10. With the said additional observations, the present review petition stands disposed off.”

3. In view of the above, we direct that a bank guarantee may be accepted for the intervening period of the demand raised from 11.11.2025 to 26.11.2025, 13.12.2025 to 02.01.2026 and 16.01.2026 to 22.01.2026 and if such a bank guarantee is given, the same shall be accepted and shall be utilized only as per the ord

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top