[2025:RJ-JP:36386-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 261/2024 in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.12808/2020 Mithalal Bohra Son Of Shri M.C. Bohra, Aged About 71 Years, Resident Of Ward No. 1, Gangapur City, District Sawaimadhopur (Rajasthan). ----Appellant Versus 1. Union Of India, Through The Secretary, Ministry Of Environment And Forest (Fc Division), Paryavaran Bhawan, Cgo Complex, Lodi Road, New Delhi. 2. State Of Rajasthan Through The Principal Secretary, Department Of Forest, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur. 3. The Director (FC), Ministry Of Environment And Forest, (FC Division), Paryavaran Bhawan, Cgo Complex, Lodi Road, New Delhi. 4. The Chief Conservator Of Forests (Central), Ministry Of Environment And Forests, Government Of India, Parivahan Bhawan, Lodhi Road, New Delhi. 5. Deputy Conservator Of Forest (Central), Ministry Of Environment And Forests, Regional Office, 5Th Floor, Central Building, Sector H, Aliganj, Lucknow. 6. The Director, Department Of Mines And Geology, Shastri Circle,udaipur. 7. Mining Engineer, Department Of Mines And Geology, Karauli. 8. Deputy Conservator Of Forest, Department Of Forest, Karauli. ----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. A.K. Sharma, Sr. Adv. through VC assisted by Mr. Madhav Dadhich For Respondent(s) : Mr. Bharat Vyas, AAG assisted by Mr. Jaivardhan Joshi Mr. B.S. Chhaba, AAG assisted by Mr. Hardik Singh, Mr. Vinayak Saran & Ms. Mansi Sharma Mr. Chandra Shekhar Sinha, CGPC with Mr. Mayank Kamwar & Mr. Devesh Yadav HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEET PUROHIT [2025:RJ-JP:36386-DB] (2 of 4) [SAW-261/2024] Order 09/09/2025 1. The challenge is to the order dated 08.02.2024 passed by learned Single Judge, whereby the writ petition preferred by the appellant/petitioner was rejected with the observations as under:- "22.Had it been the case of the petitioner that he was vigilant enough for his rights, he could have approached the Central Government and he could have approached this Court by way filing appropriate petition well within time the things would have been different but he was sleeping over his rights for a considerable time i.e. for more than seventeen years and no reasonable explanation has been given by the petitioner for such an inordinate delay of seventeen years in approaching this Court, hence, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief because this writ petition suffers from delay and laches and the same is hereby dismissed on this count alone." 2. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the writ petition has wrongly been rejected by the learned Single Judge on the ground of laches as the impugned orders dated 25.09.2003 & 06.11.2003, were never communicated to the appellant, whereby prayer for diversion of 13.99 Hectares of forest land was rejected. Learned counsel further submits that firstly, the orders were not communicated to the appellant and secondly, the same did not give out any reason for rejection of the proposal of request for diversion of 13.99 Hectares of forest land. Learned Senior Counsel, therefore, submits that the writ petition has been rejected on the ground of laches. It is also a submission that even the State Authorities had no knowledge of the rejection of the proposal sent to the Ministry of Environment and Forests. Therefore, learned counsel submits that the application of the appellant should be re-considered on merits with regard to diversion of forest land as in other similar matters also, the same have been acceded to by the Government. [2025:RJ-JP:36386-DB] (3 of 4) [SAW-261/2024] 3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents have pointed out that the orders of rejection by the Ministry of Environment and Forests dated 25.09.2003 & 06.11.2003, were duly communicated to the appellant regarding the approval having been rejected way- back in the year 2003. The pain on the appellant raised after year 2019 and the same suffers from gross laches. It cannot be expected from the appellant, who himself is engaged in mining activities, to have no notice or information regarding the proposal having been rejected way-back in the year 2003. It is an afterthought and the contention of the appellant, having no knowledge with regard to the rejection, cannot be accepted. 4. We have considered the submissions. 5. We find that the appellant prays for setting aside the rejection proposal for diversion of 13.99 Hectares of forest land in favour of the appellant in terms of the Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980. The said prayer has been made in a petition, which has been filed in the year 2020 with respect to the order passed in the year 2003. We are unable to accept the contention raised by the appellant having no knowledge of the rejection scheme more so as he himself states that the other adjoining mine owners have also been granted the benefit of diversion. If they have been granted diversion benefit and the appellant was treated otherwise, he would have known about the same. 6. We are in agreement with the contention as examined by learned Single Judge to reach to the conclusion that the writ petition suffers from gross laches and delay on the part of the writ petitioner in approaching the Court. The judgments as cited by the [2025:RJ-JP:36386-DB] (4 of 4) [SAW-261/2024] learned Single Judge, would have complete application to the facts of the case. However, we find that the respondents themselves have also stated that the appellant is always free to again submit an application for diversion of the forest land on the website of 'PARIVESH' after fulfilling all the conditions of diversion. 7. Taking into consideration the said aspect, we leave it open for the appellant to re-apply and if he is found to have the necessary conditions fulfilled, the Authorities may proceed accordingly. The rejection of the application and the writ petition by this Court would not come in his way for the purpose of fresh application. 8. With the aforesaid observations, the present special appeal stands dismissed. 9. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. (SANJEET PUROHIT),J (SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),J SAHIL SONI /75