[2026:RJ-JD:1127-DB]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 867/2023 Prahlad Sansi S/o Shree Kishan Sansi, Aged About 57 Years, Resident Of Laxmangarh Colony, Bagor, Tehsil Mandal, District Bhilwara (Rajasthan).

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Additional Chief Secretary, Department Of Mines And Geology, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur (Rajasthan).

2. The Director, Directorate, Department Of Mines And Geology, Khanij Bhawan, Sharstri Circle, Udaipur (Rajasthan).

3. The Additional Director (Mining), Department Of Mines And Geology, Udaipur Zone, Udaipur (Rajasthan).

4. The District Collector, Bhilwara (Rajasthan).

5. The Mining Engineer, Department Of Mines And Geology, Bhilwara (Rajasthan).

6. M/s Varaha Mines And Minerals, Gugli, Tehsil Amet, District Rajsamand (Rajasthan) Through Partner Shri Basant Singh Rao.

----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ajay Kumar Vyas For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rajesh Joshi Sr. Adv. Mr. Arvind Vyas, Mr. Harshvardhan Singh for Mr. Mahaveer Bishnoi, AAG HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR SHARMA

Order

09/01/2026

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The present writ petition has been filed with the following prayers :-

“A/ The respondent State authorities may kindly be directed to act upon the letter dated 22.11.2022 (Annexure-9) forthwith and further be directed to cancel the Mining Lease No.08/1992, location Village- Laxmangarh, Tehsil Mandal, District Bhilwara as well as mining lease agreement dated

07.12.2021(Annexure-5).

B/ The respondent State authorities may kindly be directed to take necessary action against the respondent Firm for removing overburden from the residential area, road, pasture land etc.

C/ The respondent Mining Department may kindly be directed not to issue Mining Lease in Khasra No.- 116, Village Laxmangarh, Tehsil Mandal, District-

Bhilwara in future”.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently submits that the respondent No.6 is a mining leaseholder and is doing mining activities by violating the established procedure. He submits that the mining is being done by blasting creating havoc in the nearby areas of inhabitants and, therefore, the respondent No.6 may be restrained from processing mining operations through blasting. Learned counsel submits that the overburden is being thrown at a public road creating obstructions for the persons, who are residing in that area. He, therefore, prays that the respondent Mining Department may be directed to take appropriate action against the respondent No.6.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent – Mining Department submits that in pursuance of the infirmities noticed by the respondent Department, a show cause notice dated 22.11.2022 was issued to the respondent No.6 and in reply to the show cause notice, the respondent No.6 has filed all the requisite documents showing that the mining operations are being done by the respondent No.6 in consonance with the provisions of law. The proceedings initiated by the respondent – Mining Department have finally been culminated into passing of the order dated 18.05.2023. Learned counsel for the respondent – Mining Department further assures this Court that the Mining Department will take appropriate action against any person including the respondent No.6, if the mining operations are undertaken and done dehors the law.

5. Learned Senior Counsel for the respondent No.6 submitted before this Court that the allegation of blasting is without any foundation. He submits that the respondent No.6 is undertaking mining operations by VIRSA technique for excavation of the minerals from the mine in question and he is not using any blasting for such purposes. Learned Senior Counsel submits that the overburden of the mining area is being collected at a Khatedari land situated nearby the mining area and, therefore, there is no question of obstruction being created by the overburden of the min