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 Naniber, Abdasa, District Kachchh. On 26.03.1998, the State Government (Government of Gujarat) issued Letter of Intent (LOI) for allotment of 730.60 Hectares of Limestone mining lease to the petitioners. The true copy of the Letter of Intent (LOI) is appended at page No. ‘31’ of the paper-book as Annexure ‘P-1’.

8. On 23.06.2010, the State Government sought permission of the Central Empowered Committee (CEC) to delete 2105.41 Hectares forest area in 57 villages of four districts of the State of Gujarat under Section 4 of the Indian Forest Act’ 1927 (for short, “the Forest Act”). The issue regarding the allotment of these portions of land was pending before the Apex Court and the CEC had submitted a report dated 23.06.2010 before the Apex Court endorsing the deletion of the aforesaid area acknowledging the rights of the villagers in response to the areas notified under Section 4 of the Forest Act.

9. In the meantime, on 28.06.2011, the Environment Clearance was granted by the Ministry of Environment and Forest (MoEF) vide letter dated 28.06.2011 for the leased are