[2025:RJ-JP:29742] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6547/2014 Rajesh Kumar, Son Of Shri Kajod Ram, Village Daudpur, Tehsil And District Alwar Rajasthan ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan Through Secretary, Department Of Mines And Geology, Secretariat, Jaipur 2. Director, Mines And Geology, Udaipur 3. Mining Engineer, Alwar ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Ashwani Chobisa For Respondent(s) : Mr.Rahul Lodha, Addl.GC. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 04/08/2025 1. By way of filing this writ petition, a prayer has been made for issuing direction to the respondents to extent the period of mining lease of the petitioner for a period of 20 years, w.e.f., 07.09.1999 till 20 years. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the mining lease of the petitioner expired on 07.09.1999, thereafter, no application was submitted by the petitioner for extension of the same, however, by virtue of Rules 16 of the Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1986 (for short, “the Rules of 1986”), the respondents were supposed to extend the same automatically, hence, interference of this Court is warranted. 3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-State opposes the arguments raised by counsel for the petitioner and submits [2025:RJ-JP:29742] (2 of 2) [CW-6547/2014] that as per the notification dated 07.05.1992 of the Ministry of Environment and Forest, the clearance from the Ministry was required, but the petitioner has failed to secure the clearance, hence, in absence of the same, the period has expired and the lease cannot be extended. 4. Heard and considered the submissions made at the Bar and perused the material available on record. 5. This fact is not in dispute that the mining lease of the petitioner has expired on 07.09.1999 and this fact is also not in dispute that the petitioner never submitted any application for extension of the same. This fact is also not in dispute that the petitioner has not secured any environment clearance from the Ministry of Environment and Forest, which is mandatory as per the notification dated 07.05.1992, hence, under these circumstances, the relief sought for cannot be granted to the petitioner. 6. This Court finds no merit and substance in this writ petition. Accordingly, the same is hereby rejected. 7. Stay application and all pending application(s), if any, also stand dismissed. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Aayush Sharma /84