Reserved On : 24/12/2025 Pronounced On : 18/03/2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 18353 of 2018 With CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR FIXING DATE OF HEARING) NO. 3 of

2025 In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 18353 of 2018 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. JUSTICE SUNITA AGARWAL and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.N.RAY =============================================

Approved for Reporting Yes No ✔

=============================================

VADRAJ CEMENT LIMITED & ANR.

Versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR.

=============================================

Appearance:

DELETED for the Petitioner(s) No. 2 MR.SHALIN MEHTA, SENIOR COUNSEL WITH MR.GAURAV MEHTA, MR.AMIT LADDHA AND MR HARDIK P MODH(5344) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 MS.HETAL PATEL, ASST.GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the Respondent(s) No. 2 MR.KIRTIMAN SINGH, SENIOR COUNSEL WITH MR HARSHEEL D SHUKLA(6158) for the Respondent(s) No. 1 =============================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. JUSTICE SUNITA AGARWAL and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.N.RAY

CAV JUDGMENT

(PER : HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. JUSTICE SUNITA AGARWAL)

1. Heard the learned senior counsels for the parties and perused the record.

2. The present petition was heard at length on 18.12.2025 and the judgment was reserved. However, on the application, i.e. Civil Application No.03 of 2025 filed on behalf of the Union of India, the date 24.12.2025 had been fixed for further hearing, when the matter was further heard at length and the judgment was reserved.

3. The petitioner herein, namely Vadraj Cement Ltd. (Earlier known as ABG Cement Ltd.) is a company registered under the Companies Act’ 1956 and has filed the present petition initially, through its Managing Director Mr.Vijay Prakash Sharma. However, on an order dated 07.08.2024 passed in Civil Application (For Amendment) No.01 of 2024, the petitioner has been substituted to be represented through Mr.Pulkit Gupta, the Interim Resolution Professional (IRP) of the petitioner Company appointed by the National Companies Law Tribunal (NCLT), Mumbai vide order dated 02.02.2024 passed in CP (IB) No.3528 / MV / 2018 and confirmed as the Resolution Professional of the applicant Company by its Committee of Creditors in their first meeting held on

02.03.2024.

4. However, later on the approval of the resolution plan by the NCLT, Mumbai vide order dated 01.04.2025, the name and identity of the company and the petitioner Company herein has been substituted to be represented through its Authorized signatory Mr.Ajay Khushu.

5. The writ petition has been filed to impugn the provisions of Section 10A(2)(c) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (for short, “the Act’ 1957” or “the MCDR Act’ 1957”) and Rule 8(4) of the Minerals (Other than Atomic and Hydro Carbons Energy Mineral) Concession Rules, 2016 (for short, “the Rules’ 2016” or “the MCR Rules’ 2016”), to be declared ultra vires of Articles 14, 18 and 21 of the Constitution of India. Further, challenge is to the order dated 17.11.2017 purportedly issued by the respondent No.1, namely the Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Mines, New Delhi, as communicated to the petitioner on 25.05.2018 by the respondent No.2 namely, the State of Gujarat through the Secretary, Industries and Mines Department, Gandhinagar.

6. The final prayer is to issue necessary directions to the respondent No.2, namely State Government to forthwith take all necessary steps to execute and register the mining lease deed with regard to the subject area admeasuring 300.6957 Hectares situated at Village Naniber, Taluka Abdasa, District Kachchh, as granted vide order dated 08.01.2017 issued by the State Government.

7. The relevant facts, in brief, to address the controversy at hands are that vide Government of India letter No.4/122/96/M-4 dated 01.12.1997 prior approval for Limestone mining lease for 30 years was granted over the land admeasuring 730.60 Hectares situated at N