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

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BALJINDER SINGH SANDHU

Judgment

Date of conclusion of arguments : 18/04/2026

Date on which judgment was reserved : 18/04/2026

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

Date of pronouncement : 12/05/2026

(Per Hon'ble The Acting Chief Justice)

1. Leave to appeal is granted.

2. Applications under section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for the condonation of delay have been filed. For reasons stated in the applications, delay in filing the review petitions is condoned.

3. The defects, as pointed out by the Registry, have been removed.

4. The present review petitions have been filed by the petitioners inter alia praying that the judgment of this Court dated 20.01.2026 whereby e- auctions commenced with regard to 93 mining leases for minor mineral Bajri from March, 2024 were quashed, be reviewed. The review petitions primarily contend that the petitioners were not impleaded as necessary parties in the writ proceedings. On this basis, they seek a review of the judgment dated 20.01.2026.

5. At the outset, the Learned Senior Counsel, Mr. Amit Sibbal appearing for Review petition no. 57/2026 along with the other learned counsels for the review petitioners squarely state that the review petitioners did not possess any knowledge about the said writ petition and were prevented from bringing material facts to the knowledge of this Court. It was an undisputed position that the review petitioners were successful bidders to whom Letters of Intent (LOIs) were awarded in favour of by the respondent authorities thereby making the review petitioners undoubtedly a necessary and/or a proper party to the writ petition in this Court.

6. It is submitted that while deciding the writ petition, this Court failed to consider that the auctions were conducted strictly in accordance with the Standard Operating Procedure dated 07.10.2023 issued by the State Government, which remained unchallenged by the writ petitioner, which also stood approved by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on 20.08.2025. It is also submitted that the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as the recommendation under Paragraph 11(iii) of the CEC Report were not applicable in the present case owing to the smaller size of the leases.

7. He also submits that, the Hon’ble Supreme Court by order dated 11.11.2021 approved the recommendations of the CEC, save and except recommendation “J”. The procedure contemplated under Paragraph 11(iii) was not binding at the auction stage, as it was applicable only to Letter of Intent (LoI) holders at the relevant stage. Therefore, the impugned judgment suffers from a fundamental error and deserves to be reviewed.

8. He further submits that the factum of issuance of LoIs was not brought to the notice of this Court, and consequently, the Court was not apprised that such LoIs were subject to approval of mining plans and grant of environmental clearance by competent authorities.

9. He also submits that this Court erred in not considering the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2017, as amended on 03.01.2025. The amended Rule 11 clearly lays down a staged compliance mechanism post issuance of LoIs. Mining operations are expressly prohibited until completion of these stages. Thus, the writ petition itself was premature, as no mining activity had commenced at the relevant time.

10. He further contends that this Court failed to appreciate that Paragraph 11(iii)(f), (g), and (h) of the CEC Report are to be read conjointly. Clause (f) cannot be read in isolation. A harmonious reading shows that:

● No sand is to be extracted from already mined blocks within five years;

● Annual replenishment studies are to be conducted;

● Results of such studies are to be used to update District Survey Reports ( DSRs) and determine permissible limits.

11. He contends that this Court misapplied Paragraph 11(iii)(f) by treating it as an absolute prohibition at the auc