[2026:RJ-JD:9750]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16018/2025 Chhoturam S/o Shri Mangla Ram, Aged About 47 Years, R/o Rar Ki Dhani, Post- Suliyawas, Via- Danta, Tehsil- Dnataramgargh, District Sikar (Rajasthan)

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Mines Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

2. Chief Secretary, State Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.).

3. The Joint Secretary (Mines), Mines Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

4. The Director, Mines And Geology Department, Directorate, Khanij Bhawan, Udaipur.

5. The Mining Engineer, Mines And Geology Department, Jodhpur Zone, Jodhpur.

6. The Additional Director, Mines And Geology Department, Jodhpur Zone, Jodhpur.

7. The Assistant Mining Engineer, Mines And Geology Department, Jaisalmer.

----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Om Prakash Kumawat For Respondent(s) : Mr. Gaurav Bishnoi for Mr. Mahaveer Bishnoi, AAG HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEET PUROHIT

Order

24/02/2026

1. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the issue involved in present writ petition is squarely covered by the judgment passed by Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Dalpat Singh Vs. Union of India & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5211/2021) decided on 18.07.2023.

2. Learned counsel for respondent raised preliminary objection regarding maintainability of writ petition on the ground of non- impleadment of necessary party as well as on the ground of delay and latches. Learned counsel for the respondent stated that mineral involved in the present writ petition is major mineral, thus writ petition cannot be maintained without impleading Union of India as party respondent. Further, it is contended that order impugned was passed in year 2021, whereas the same has been challenged in year 2025, without giving any explanation for delay.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as a matter of fact, order dated 10.02.2021, impugned in present writ petition has been passed by the Mining (Group 2) Department, State of Rajasthan, therefore, Union of India is not necessary party.

4. This Court is of the opinion that since the challenge has been laid against order passed by the Mining department, State of Rajasthan and the issues involved can be decided in presence of existing parties, therefore, objection raised by learned counsel for respondent regarding non-impleadment of necessary party is not sustainable.

5. Regarding objection of delay, learned counsel for petitioner submits that as a matter of fact, the order impugned dated 10.02.2021 has been passed by a Committee constituted by the Mining Department, State of Rajasthan, however, the same had not been served upon petitioner.

6. Learned counsel for respondent failed to dispute said fact and has not provided any specific details with regard to service of the said order upon petitioner. In view of the same, said objection regarding delay is also rejected as being misconceived.

7. Learned counsel for the respondent has failed to establish that the controversy involved in the present case is not covered by the judgment passed in the case of Dalpat Singh (Supra).

8. The relevant part of the judgment passed in the case of Dalpat Singh (Supra) is quoted below:

“36. Thus, this Court finds that the impugned action and the decision of the State Government is ad-verbetum the same and the reason for canceling the LoIs/Pls of the present petitioners is the same as was for the petitioner in the case of M/s. Kamlesh Meta cast Pvt. Ltd.

37. The action of the State Government is such that it has failed to exercise degree of fairness and rather the action of the State Government is highly discriminatory as on one hand, when the impugned action of the State has been held to be invalid and the impugned orders have also been quashed and set aside by this Court in the case of M/s. Kamlesh Meta cast Pvt. Ltd. (supra) and on the other hand, the plea