[2026:RJ-JP:4535] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Contempt Petition No. 645/2025 In S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4767/2008 Serve Shri Shray Grit Udhyog village Lasher, Tehsil Kama, District Bharatpur through shri Lalit Kumar son of shri surya Prasad aged about 50 years, resident of village lahser, Tehsil Kama, District Bharatpur, holder of power of attorney for the mining lease of masonry stone bearing number 16/2000 located near village Lahser, Tehsil Kama, District Bharatpur. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Shri T. Ravi Kant S/o Unknown, Secretary, Department Of Mines And Petroleum, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur. 2. Shri Deepak Tanwar S/o Unknown, Director Mines & Geology, Department Of Mines And Geology, Government Of Rajasthan, Shastri Circle, Udaipur. 3. Shri K.C. Goyal S/o Unknown, Mining Engineer, Department Of Mines & Geology, Government Of Rajasthan, Bharatpur. ...Contemnors/Respondents 4. State Of Rajasthan Through Its Secretary, Department Of Mines And Petroleum, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vimal Chand Chaudhary, Adv. Mr. Yogesh Kumar Tailor, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Yash Joshi, Adv. & Ms. Tanvisha Pant, Adv. for Mr. Vigyan Shah, AAG HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA Order 31/01/2026 [2026:RJ-JP:4535] (2 of 4) [CCP-645/2025] 1. This contempt petition has been filed by the petitioner alleging non-compliance of order dated 11.01.2011 passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4767/2008, whereas following directions were given:- “(6) With the consent of the parties, I dispose of all the aforesaid writ petitions with the following direction: (a) The petitioners who have already filed applications for allotment of alternate mines in lieu of cancellation of the mining leases in ‘Brij Chorasi Kos Parikrama', their applications shall be decided in accordance with the Policy dated 03.10.2008 and subsequent proceedings taken in pursuance thereof and orders passed in consequence thereof, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order and appropriate sanction orders be passed for allotment of alternate mines and thereafter, the parties shall further proceed in accordance with the Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1986. (b) The petitioners who have not applied so far, may now apply within a period of fifteen days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, for grant of alternate mining lease area in lieu of cancellation of their existing mining leases and their applications shall be decided within a period of one month thereafter in accordance with the aforesaid rehabilitation policy dated 03.10.2008 and subsequent proceedings taken in pursuance thereof and orders passed in consequence thereof and appropriate sanction order be issued. Thereafter, the parties shall further proceed in accordance with the Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1986. (c) In pursuance to the aforesaid impugned orders of cancellation of the mining lease of the petitioners, the respondents may take possession of the existing mining lease area in "Brij Chorasi Kos Parikrama", if it has not been taken so far.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that pursuant to such directions, vide letter dated 31.10.2017 guidelines were sought by the Director, Mines & Geology, for proceeding further in the matter of as many as 16 persons [2026:RJ-JP:4535] (3 of 4) [CCP-645/2025] including the petitioner, however, despite that letter of intent (LOI) was not issued, which is reflected from letter dated 31.01.2018 issued by the Director. Learned counsel submits that the respondents have treated the petitioner with hostile discrimination for the reason that in other cases, where writ petitions were filed by the petitioners along with the petitioner and disposed of vide order dated 11.01.2011, adopting policy of pick and choose, relaxation under the rules have been granted in their favour, whereas such treatment has not been extended to the petitioner. Learned counsel submits that such conduct of the respondents is in utter disregard and disobedience of order dated 11.01.2011 passed by this Court, therefore, the respondents are liable to be punished for contempt. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents, at the outset, submitted that no disobedience whatsoever has been done by them and objection has also been raised that as per Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, limitation for filing contempt petition is only one year from the date of alleged commission of contempt. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that in the entire contempt petition, nothing has been shown by the petitioner so as to lead any inference that the contempt petition has been filed within the limitation period as prescribed under Section 20 of the Act of 1971. Learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that prior to filing of this contempt petition, the petitioner also filed S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.9452/2025, wherein following prayer has been made:- “It is, therefore, prayed that this writ petition may kindly be allowed and writ of mandamus be issued against the respondents to implement the judgment [2026:RJ-JP:4535] (4 of 4) [CCP-645/2025] dated 11.01.2011 passed by this Hon'ble Court and also issue letter of intent /sanction order of mining lease for mineral masonry stone in the light of the order dated 11.01.2011 and proposal sent by the Director Mines and Geology on 31.10.2017, within a stipulated period of time and the impugned letter dated 16.03.2018 be quashed and set aside in the interest of justice.” 4. Learned counsel submits that in the instant contempt petition, the petitioner has not disclosed the fact of filing S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.9452/2025, wherein also he is seeking implementation of judgment dated 11.01.2011. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. Without making any comments on merits of the case, this Court finds that the directions given by this Court in order dated 11.01.2011 do not give rise to any continuing cause of action, therefore, under such circumstances, for the purpose of filing contempt petition, the provisions of Section 20 of the Act of 1971 would come into play and the instant contempt petition, since filed after the prescribed limitation period, is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed on this ground. 7. The contempt petition filed by the petitioner stands dismissed. 8. Notices stand discharged. 9. However, mere dismissal of the present contempt petition would not prejudice rights of the petitioner to pursue S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.9452/2025. (ANAND SHARMA),J Jatin /6