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

2026 Supreme(Online)(Raj) 2387

HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JAIPUR BENCH)
ANAND SHARMA
SERVE SHRI SHRAY GRIT UDHYOG – Appellant
Versus
SHRI T. RAVI KANT S/O UNKNOWN SECRETARY – Respondent
CCP / 645 / 2025



##PAGE1##

[2026:RJ-JP:4535]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

BENCH AT JAIPUR

S.B. Civil Contempt Petition No. 645/2025

In

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4767/2008

Serve Shri Shray Grit Udhyog village Lasher, Tehsil Kama,

District Bharatpur through shri Lalit Kumar son of shri surya

Prasad aged about 50 years, resident of village lahser, Tehsil

Kama, District Bharatpur, holder of power of attorney for the

mining lease of masonry stone bearing number 16/2000 located

near village Lahser, Tehsil Kama, District Bharatpur.

----Petitioner

Versus

1. Shri T. Ravi Kant S/o Unknown, Secretary, Department Of

Mines And Petroleum, Government Of Rajasthan,

Secretariat, Jaipur.

2. Shri Deepak Tanwar S/o Unknown, Director Mines &

Geology, Department Of Mines And Geology, Government

Of Rajasthan, Shastri Circle, Udaipur.

3. Shri K.C. Goyal S/o Unknown, Mining Engineer,

Department Of Mines & Geology, Government Of

Rajasthan, Bharatpur.

...Contemnors/Respondents

4. State Of Rajasthan Through Its Secretary, Department Of

Mines And Petroleum, Government Of Rajasthan,

Secretariat, Jaipur.

----Respondent

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vimal Chand Chaudhary, Adv.

Mr. Yogesh Kumar Tailor, Adv.

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Yash Joshi, Adv. &

Ms. Tanvisha Pant, Adv. for

Mr. Vigyan Shah, AAG

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA

Order

31/01/2026

(Uploaded on 03/02/2026 at 05:29:34 PM)

(Downloaded on 07/02/2026 at 12:27:20 PM)

##PAGE2##

[2026:RJ-JP:4535] (2 of 4) [CCP-645/2025]

1. This contempt petition has been filed by the petitioner

alleging non-compliance of order dated 11.01.2011 passed by the

Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition

No.4767/2008, whereas following directions were given:-

“(6) With the consent of the parties, I dispose of all

the aforesaid writ petitions with the following

direction:

(a) The petitioners who have already filed

applications for allotment of alternate mines in lieu of

cancellation of the mining leases in ‘Brij Chorasi Kos

Parikrama', their applications shall be decided in

accordance with the Policy dated 03.10.2008 and

subsequent proceedings taken in pursuance thereof

and orders passed in consequence thereof, within a

period of one month from the date of receipt of copy

of this order and appropriate sanction orders be

passed for allotment of alternate mines and

thereafter, the parties shall further proceed in

accordance with the Minor Mineral Concession Rules,

1986.

(b) The petitioners who have not applied so far, may

now apply within a period of fifteen days from the

date of receipt of copy of this order, for grant of

alternate mining lease area in lieu of cancellation of

their existing mining leases and their applications

shall be decided within a period of one month

thereafter in accordance with the aforesaid

rehabilitation policy dated 03.10.2008 and

subsequent proceedings taken in pursuance thereof

and orders passed in consequence thereof and

appropriate sanction order be issued. Thereafter, the

parties shall further proceed in accordance with the

Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1986.

(c) In pursuance to the aforesaid impugned orders of

cancellation of the mining lease of the petitioners, the

respondents may take possession of the existing

mining lease area in "Brij Chorasi Kos Parikrama", if it

has not been taken so far.”

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

pursuant to such directions, vide letter dated 31.10.2017

guidelines were sought by the Director, Mines & Geology, for

proceeding further in the matter of as many as 16 persons

(Uploaded on 03/02/2026 at 05:29:34 PM)

(Downloaded on 07/02/2026 at 12:27:20 PM)

##PAGE3##

[2026:RJ-JP:4535] (3 of 4) [CCP-645/2025]

including the petitioner, however, despite that letter of intent (LOI)

was not issued, which is reflected from letter dated 31.01.2018

issued by the Director. Learned counsel submits that the

respondents have treated the petitioner with hostile discrimination

for the reason that in other cases, where writ petitions were filed

by the petitioners along with the petitioner and disposed of vide

order dated 11.01.2011, adopting

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top