Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(Raj) 14056

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
Sanjeev Prakash Sharma, ACJ, Sanjeet Purohit, J
Dinesh Kumawat – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 19341/2025 | D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6539/2017 | D.B. Civil Contempt Petition No. 988/2023 | D.B. Civil Contempt Petition No. 116/2026 | D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 24108/2025

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Moti Singh, Mr. Prashant Kachhawa (in CWP No.24108/2025), Mr. R.B. Mathur, Sr. Adv. assisted by Mr. Amit Malani, Mr. Manish Bhodiwal, Mr. Falak Mathur, Mr. Yug Singh, Mr. Utsal Verma, Mr. Salim Khan Gori, Mr. Chandra Mammani on behalf of Mr. Kapil Sharma (in CWP Nos. 19341/2025, 6539/2017, 988/2023, 116/2026)
For the Respondents:Mr. Mahaveer Bishnoi, AAG, Mr. Arpit Sharma for Mr. Nathu Singh Rathore, AAG, Mr. Ramavtar Sikhwal, Mr. Akshay Nagori, Mr. Vaibhav Bhansali (in CWP No.24108/2025), Mr. Tushar Mehta, Senior Advocate (Solicitor General of India) assisted by Mr. Lokendra Singh Kachhawa, Mr. Bharat Vyas, Sr. Adv.-cum-A.S.G. assisted by Mr. C.S. Sinha, Mr. Dev Yadav, Ms. Anushka Khandelwal and Mr. Kapil Vyas, Mr. Rajendra Prasad, Sr. Adv.-cum-A.G. assisted by Mr. Sheetanshu Sharma and Ms. Dhriti Laddha, Mr. Tanay Goyal, Ms. Parinitoo Jain, Commodre Kamlesh Kumar Ex-CMD, HSL/SSL (in CWP Nos. 19341/2025, 6539/2017, 988/2023, 116/2026)

The court held that while judicial restraint is the norm in regulatory matters, where environmental safeguards are diluted and fundamental rights threatened, intervention is a constitutional duty. Development must balance with environmental protection, applying the precautionary principle and sustainable development doctrine.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India, 1950 - Articles 14 and 21 - Rajasthan Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Rules, 1975 - Rajasthan Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Rules, 1983 - Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 - Sustainable development - Precautionary principle - Environmental protection - Judicial review of regulatory classifications - The court held that while deference to expert regulatory bodies is the norm, where regulatory action dilutes environmental safeguards and threatens fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 21, judicial intervention is a constitutional necessity. (Paras 10-11)

(B) Suppression of material facts - A litigant who suppresses material facts is disentitled from equitable relief. (Para 8)

Facts of the case:
The present application was filed by the respondent seeking vacation of an interim order dated 17.12.2025, which had stayed the establishment of a 100 MW Solar Power Project at Khasra No. 1174, Village Nawa, District Nagaur. The petitioners had filed a writ petition to protect wetlands in Rajasthan. The respondent contended that the petition suppressed the pendency of proceedings before the National Green Tribunal and that the project falls within the 'White Category' not requiring prior environmental clearance. A report from the Additional District & Sessions Judge No.1, Sambhar Lake confirmed that the Khasra is not a wetland, not connected to the Sambhar Lake, and has no water body.

Findings of Court:
The court vacated the interim order and permitted the project to proceed subject to conditions: maintaining a minimum panel height of 1.5 meters for bird habitat, replanting three times the number of any uprooted trees, and ensuring no restriction on water inflow for migratory birds.

Issues: The main issues were whether the project site forms part of a wetland, whether the court should vacate the interim stay, and how to balance developmental needs with environmental protection.

Ratio Decidendi: The court applied the precautionary principle and the doctrine of sustainable development, holding that while developmental projects of public importance should not be stalled outright, they must be permitted subject to safeguards that protect fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 21, including the right to a clean environment and protection of avian habitats.

Result: Application disposed of; interim order vacated; project permitted subject to conditions.

Table of Content
1. challenge to interim order based on suppression of material facts. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6)
2. court considers suppression of facts and need for environmental scrutiny. (Para 7 , 8 , 9)
3. doctrine of sustainable development and constitutional duty to protect fundamental rights. (Para 10 , 11)
4. factual findings: land not wetland; revenue classification not conclusive. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16)
5. balancing development with ecological protection using precautionary principle. (Para 17 , 18 , 19)
6. final order: interim stay vacated, project permitted with protective conditions. (Para 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26)

HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEET PUROHIT

Judgment

Date of conclusion of Arguments : 17th April, 2026

Date on which judgment was reserved : 17th April, 2026

Whether the full judgment or only the operative part is pronounced : Full judgment

Date of pronouncement : 28th April, 2026

(Per Hon’ble the Acting Chief Justice)

1. The present application has been preferred by the applicant-respondent primarily praying for vacation of the interim order dated 17.12.2025, for permitting the respondent to proceed with the establishment of the proposed 100 MW Solar Power Project at Khasra No. 1174, Village Nawa, District Nagaur, Rajasthan and dismissal of the stay application with exemplary costs.

2. It has been contended by the Learned Counsel for the applicant–respondent that the writ petition has been filed suppressing material facts, particularly the pendency of proceedings being O.A. No. 143/2025 (CZ) titled Rajendra Kumar & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors. before the Hon’ble National Green Tribunal, Central Zone, Bhopal. It is submitted that the said proceedings pertain to the very same project and involve residents of the same village, and therefore the plea of ignorance taken by the writ petitioners is wholly untenable.

3. It is further contended that the Learned National Green Tribunal, while entertaining the said Original Application, has neither stayed the project nor restrained the respondents from proceeding further. Rather, by order dated 15.10.2025, a Committee was constituted to examine the factual and legal aspects of the project. The applicant submits that all relevant documents were furnished before the Committee and local stakeholders were duly heard.

4. He has also pointed out that the project in question, being a Solar Power Project, falls within the “White Category” as notified under the Rajasthan Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Rules, 1975 and the Rajasthan Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Rules, 1983, and further clarified by the Rajasthan State Pollution Control Board. It is submitted that such projects do not require prior environmental clearance in view of the Office Memorandum dated 13.05.2011 issued by the Ministry of Environment and Forests under the EIA Notification, 2006.

5. The Learned Counsel further submits that the project site at Khasra No. 1174 is situated beyond a distance of 5 kilometers from the Sambhar Lake Wetland and is not part of any notified wetland area. Reliance has also been placed upon a communication issued by the Estate Officer under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971, clarifying that the land in question lies outside the wetland boundary as well as outside the area involved in pending suo motu proceedings before this Court.

6. It is contended that the petitioners have misled this Court into passing the ex parte interim order dated 17.12.2025 by suppressing these material facts and that the continuation of the said order is causing serious prejudice to a project aimed at generation of clean energy for the State.

7. This Court finds that certain material facts, particularly the pendency of proceedings before the Hon’ble National Green Tribunal and the absence of any interim restraint therein, were not brought to the notice of this Court at the time of pass

Click Here to Read the rest of this document