HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1033/2020 Malchand Meena S/o Shri Jagannath Meena ----Petitioner Versus The Chief Secretary ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. M.M. Ranjan, Sr.Adv. with Mr. Rajat Ranjan &

Mr. Yashvardhan Tolani For Respondent(s) : Mr. Samee Khan, AAAG Ms. Sunita Meena, AGC Mr. Manoj Sharma, AAG Mr. Sankalp Vijay, AAAG with Mr. Rohit Tiwari, AGC Mr. Ashvini Raj Tanwar for Mr. Akhil Simlote HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SANGEETA SHARMA

Order

21/01/2026

1. The affidavit has been filed by one Mr. Kapil Chandrawal, working as Deputy Conservator of Forests (Wildlife) Zoo, Depart- ment of Forest, Jaipur, Rajasthan, who states that there is no min- ing operation being carried out in the notified Eco Sensitive Zone (ESZ) in Villages Gunawata and Labana and only lease operating mining is being done in Village Gunawata with the permission out-

side the notified Eco Sensitive Zone area.

2. He has placed on record photographs which reflect that there is a crusher at Labana and the Mining Pit-2 at Gunawata, while there is another Mining Pit-1 at Gunawata and a Crusher, however, the entire side reflects that there has been rapid mining done in the entire hill area where there are roads into the concerned area reflecting that pits have been made in between the Crusher and Mining Pit-1 at Gunawata.

3. Prima facie, the affidavit filed by the concerned officer ap- pears to be a false affidavit. Let the Chief Engineer (Mines) further examine the matter. We notice that the direction issued by this Court for filing of the reply by the State was required to be an- swered by Mining Engineer, Jaipur, who has conveniently refrained from filing any affidavit.

4. Let the Chief Engineer (Mines), Jaipur remain present in the Court. Before he appears, he should file his affidavit giving out details of the complete mines and detailed photographs of the area in order to assess the correct position.

5. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner may also file documentary proof relating to the illegal mining being done, apart from what has already been placed before the Court.

6. We notice that in spite of time being granted, the Counsel appearing for JDA has not filed reply, in spite of cost having been imposed by the Court.

7. Mr. Manoj Sharma, learned AAG, who is present in the Court, is directed to take instructions and file reply on behalf of the UDH and the JDA. We are asking him to file reply as JDA has not filed reply in spite of the cost of Rs. 30,000/- imposed by us. Although, we are noticing that the UDH has not been impleaded as a party.

8. Considering the importance and gravity of this case, we di-

rect the Secretary, UDH to be also impleaded as a party.

9. Amended cause title shall be filed accordingly.

10. It is made clear that if reply has not been filed before the next date, the Commissioner, Jaipur Development Authority shall remain personally present in the Court. He shall explain as to why costs should not be imposed on the Jaipur Development Authority and departmental action should not be taken against him.

11. List the matter on 12.02.2026.

(SANGEETA SHARMA),J (SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),ACJ DEEPTA ARORA /25