[2026:RJ-JP:13290] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5745/2026 Mmoujam W/o Late Sh. Asruddin, Aged About 64 Years, Resident Of Vilage Liwasana, Tehsil-Pahadi, District-Deeg (Rajasthan). ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Additional Chief Secretary, Department Of Mines And Geology, Government Secretariat, Jaipur (Rajasthan). 2. Directorate Of Mines And Geology, Rajasthan Through The Additional Director, Mines And Geology, Kota Range, Kota (Rajasthan). 3. Department Of Mines And Geology, Bharatpur Circle Through The Supdt. Mining Engineer Bharatpur, Situated At Khanij Bhawan, Bharatpur (Rajasthan). 4. Department Of Mines And Geology, Bharatpur Through The Mining Engineer Bharatpur, Situated At Khanij Bhawan, Bharatpur (Rajasthan). 5. Office Of The Mining Engineer (Recovery), Through The Mining Engineer, Department Of Mines And Geology, Bharatpur (Rajasthan) ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. David Mehla For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rahul Lodha, AGC HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUROOP SINGHI Order 30/03/2026 1. Issue notice to the respondents. 2. Mr. Rahul Lodha, learned AGC, puts in appearance on behalf of all the respondents. 3. Hence, service is complete. Notice need not be filed. [2026:RJ-JP:13290] (2 of 5) [CW-5745/2026] 4. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the impugned attachment order dated 18.03.2026 (Annexure 10), termination of lease deed vide office order dated 18.02.2026 (Annexure 9) and demand order dated 25.11.2025 (Annexure 6) in respect of Mining Lease No. 108/2009 situated at Village Chinawada, Tehsil Pahari, District Deeg. 5. Mr. David Mehla, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the termination of the lease deed and so also the issuance of the attachment warrant are ex facie bad in law. He further submits that against the demand order dated 25.11.2025, a revision petition filed by the petitioner under Rule 64(3) of the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2017 along with stay application are still pending consideration before the Revisional Authority and it is during the pendency of the same, that the impugned orders dated 18.02.2026 and 18.03.2026 have been passed. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that irreparable loss will be caused to the petitioner in the event the effect and operation of the impugned orders is not stayed. 7. In support of his submissions, he has placed reliance upon interim orders passed by Co-ordinate Benches titled as Jyoti Kiran Stone Crusher Falioa Versus State of Rajasthan & Ors. in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12524/2025 dated 28.08.2025; Ram Kishore Gurjar Versus Additional Director (Mines) & Ors. in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8160/2024 dated 31.05.2024 and of this Court in Alliance Quarries Mines Private Limited Versus State of Rajasthan & Ors. in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3616/2026 dated 26.02.2026. [2026:RJ-JP:13290] (3 of 5) [CW-5745/2026] 8. Thus, he prays that till the pendency of the revision petition, the effect and operation of impugned orders dated 18.02.2026 and 18.03.2026 be stayed. 9. Per Contra, Mr. Rahul Lodha, learned AGC, appearing on behalf of respondent – Mining Department, submits that as the stay application filed along with revision petition are still pending, there is no occasion for the petitioner to invoke the parallel remedy for redressal of the very same grievance. 10. Learned counsel for the respondents further submits that as the petitioner has failed to pay the demand as assessed vide demand order dated 25.11.2025, the orders dated 18.02.2026 and 18.03.2026 have been rightly issued. 11. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 12. It is a matter of record that against the demand order dated 25.11.2025, the petitioner has already preferred a revision petition along with stay application and the same are pending consideration till date. Having already availed the statutory remedy as provided under the Rules of 2017, it is not open for the petitioner to seek the prayer of interim relief against the orders dated 18.02.2026 and 18.03.2026, more so when such orders have been issued in consequence to the non-payment of demand assessed vide demand order dated 25.11.2025. In view thereof, this Court is not inclined to entertain the present writ petition. 13. The Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order dated 20.02.2026 in the case of Mangal Rajendra Kamthe Versus Tahsildar, Purandhar & Ors. arising out of SLP (C) Diary No. 71183/2025 in unequivocal terms has held that it is a settled law that once the High Court, upon application of mind, declines to [2026:RJ-JP:13290] (4 of 5) [CW-5745/2026] entertain a writ petition in the exercise of its discretionary jurisdiction on the ground that an efficacious alternative remedy for grant of relief is available but such remedy has not been pursued by the petitioner, the proceedings do not survive and must draw to an end then and there; however, in such a circumstance when no final relief can effectively be granted on the petition, it is impermissible to pass an order in the nature of an interim relief (either by granting stay of operation of the order under challenge or by directing status quo to be maintained) till such time the aggrieved petitioner approaches the alternative forum. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has further observed that if such an order is passed, it would be in the teeth of the Constitution Bench decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Orissa v. Madan Gopal Rungta reported in AIR 1952 SC 12. 14. The law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mangal Rajendra Kamthe (supra), is squarely applicable upon the facts of the present case as not only the petitioner has a statutory alternate remedy but has already invoked the same by filing a revision petition along with stay application, which are still pending consideration. 15. In view of the same, the interim orders relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner passed by the Co-ordinate Benches as well as this Court renders no assistance to the petitioner. 16. However, considering the fact that the revision petition filed by the petitioner challenging the demand order dated 25.11.2025 (Annexure 6) which constitutes the basis of issuance of the [2026:RJ-JP:13290] (5 of 5) [CW-5745/2026] subsequent orders dated 18.02.2026 (Annexure 9) and 18.03.2026 (Annexure 10) is still pending before the Revisional Authority, learned counsel for the petitioner is granted liberty to file an application before the Revisional Authority for expeditious disposal of the stay application along with a certified copy of this order. In the event of any such application being filed by the petitioner, the Revisional Authority is directed to decide the stay application so filed by the petitioner, expeditiously and strictly in accordance with law, within a period of seven days thereafter. 17. With the above directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. 18. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. (ANUROOP SINGHI),J DIPESH CHAYAL /08