[2025:RJ-JP:46864] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15122/2025 Shafi Mohammad Son Of Shri Imrat, Aged About 58 Years, Resident Of Village Angrawali, Tehsil Kaman, District Bharatpur (Rajasthan), (Holder Of Mining Lease No. 58/2011) ----Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Mines And Petroleum Department, Secretariat, Jaipur. 2. The Director, Mines And Geology Department, Udaipur. 3. The Mining Engineer, Mines And Geology Department, Bharatpur. 4. The District Collector, Bharatpur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Suresh Bundela For Respondent(s) : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEET PUROHIT Order 20/11/2025 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks limited indulgence of this Court for issuing appropriate directions to the respondents to decide petitioner’s representation for allotment of mining lease. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondents-Mines and Geology Department vide order dated 31.10.2017 (Annexure-2) has sent a proposal for issuance of the mining lease as a measure of rehabilitation to the mining leaseholders whose leaseholder’s rights have been terminated prematurely on account of fact that their Mining lease were found to come on the way of “Chaurasi Kos Yatra” Path. He further submits that petitioner’s name stands at serial no.4 of the said list. [2025:RJ-JP:46864] (2 of 3) [CW-15122/2025] 3. Counsel for the petitioner submits that in spite of making specific recommendation wayback in the year 2017 for granting alternate mining lease as a measure of rehabilitation, the process of allotment of proposed mining lease has not been completed by the respondent-authorities till date. 4. Counsel for the petitioner states that the mining lease earlier granted to the petitioner, prematurely terminated, was the sole source of livelihood for the petitioner and the petitioner has been deprived from the same which clearly violates Article 19 & 21 of the Constitution of India. 5. In view of the facts stated in the petition, limited prayer so made by the petitioner deserves acceptance. 6. Counsel for the petitioner is directed to submit a detailed representation while annexing all the necessary documents to the respondents No.1 & 2 within a period of 15 days from the date of this Order. 7. Respondents No.1 & 2 are directed to consider and decide the same in the light of recommendation made through communication dated 31.10.2017 (Annexure-2) strictly in accordance with law after granting an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner by way of a reasoned and speaking order, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of representation 8. If the petitioner is found eligible for grant of alternate mining lease as per communication dated 31.10.2017, the process of same shall also be completed as expeditiously as possible. 9. With these observations, the present writ petition is disposed of. [2025:RJ-JP:46864] (3 of 3) [CW-15122/2025] 10. Stay application and all pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. (SANJEET PUROHIT),J PAYAL DHAWAN /13