Disposed

M/S. Prateek Minerals v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC2 Sept 2024CW/13843/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In two common writ petitions, the High Court directed the respondent to decide the petitioner's representation regarding the extension of time for site clearance without commenting on the merits of the time-bar claim.

What did the court decide?

Directed respondent No.2 to decide the representation dated 24.07.2024 within two weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order.

M/S. Prateek Minerals Vs State of Rajasthan — Company and Corporate | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JP:36742]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13842/2024

¶4

M/s. Prateek Minerals, 6J(A), Malviya Industrial Area, Jaipur - 302017 Through Its Sole Proprietor Shri Prateek Agarwal Residing At 230, Nemisagar Colony, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur-302021 (Raj.).

¶5

Prateek Agarwal S/o Shri Shankar Lal Agarwal, Aged About 40 Years, Resident Of 230, Nemisagar Colony, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur-302021 (Raj.).

¶6

----Petitioners

¶7

Versus

¶8

State Of Rajasthan, Through Additional Chief Secretary, Department Of Mines And Geology, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

¶9

The Director, Department Of Mines And Geology, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Khanij Bhawan, Shastri Circle, Udaipur, Rajasthan.

¶10

The Mining Engineer, Department Of Mines And Geology, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Neem Ka Thana, (Rajasthan).

¶11

----Respondents

¶12

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13843/2024

¶13

M/s. Prateek Minerals, 6J(A), Malviya Industrial Area, Jaipur - 302017 Through Its Sole Proprietor Shri Prateek Agarwal Residing At 230, Nemisagar Colony, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur-302021 (Raj.).

¶14

Prateek Agarwal S/o Shri Shankar Lal Agarwal, Aged About 40 Years, Resident Of 230, Nemisagar Colony, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur-302021 (Raj.).

¶15

----Petitioners

¶16

Versus

¶17

State Of Rajasthan, Through Additional Chief Secretary, Department Of Mines And Geology, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur (Rajasthan).

¶18

The Director, Department Of Mines And Geology, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Khanij Bhawan, Shastri Circle, Udaipur (Rajasthan).

(2 of 3)

[2024:RJ-JP:36742]

[CW-13842/2024]

The Mining Engineer, Department Of Mines And Geology, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Opposite Hotel Ashoka, Road No.2, Jhunjhunu (Rajasthan).

¶23

----Respondents

¶24

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. A.K. Sharma, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Karan Tibrewal For Respondent(s) :

¶25

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN

¶26

Order

¶27

02/09/2024

¶28

These two petitions are being decided by this common order as the facts and issues involved are similar. For convenience, the facts are being taken from S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.13842/2024. 2. This petition is filed seeking directions to the respondent to extend E-Ravannas for period of ninety four days i.e. the time taken to decide the application filed under Rule 12 (1) (gg) of Minerals (other than Atomic and Hydro Carbons Energy Minerals) Concession Rules, 2016 (for short ‘Rules of 2016’) .

¶29

The brief facts are that petitioner No.1 was granted lease for mining Iron-Ore from a site located near Village Narda, Tehsil Neem Ka Thana. The lease ended on 10.04.2024. The petitioner filed an application on 11.04.2024 under Rule 12 (1) (gg) of the Rules of 2016 seeking six months time for clearing the site and disposing of the already excavated minerals. Vide order dated 15.07.2024, the application was accepted and the period of six months from the date of expiry of the lease deed was granted for clearing the site and removing of already excavated minerals. The petitioner filed a representation dated 24.07.2024 to respondent

[2024:RJ-JP:36742]

[CW-13842/2024]

(3 of 3)

No.2 for excluding the time period taken for deciding the application.

¶34

The grievance is that the petitioner statutorily should have been awarded six months time for clearing the site and disposing of the already excavated minerals but by inaction of the respondent, time has been effectively curtailed to half.

¶35

At this stage, without commenting upon merits of the case, the petitions are disposed of with direction to respondent No.2 to decide the representation dated 24.07.2024 within two weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order.

¶36

Needless to the say, the petitioner shall be at liberty to avail remedies in accordance with law, if aggrieved of the decision of the representation.

¶37

(AVNEESH JHINGAN),J

¶38

Simple Kumawat /42-43

M/S. Prateek Minerals v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S. Prateek Minerals v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Santosh Devi Joshi W/O Late Shri Chhedi Lal Joshi Vs Union of India

M/S Sant Internation Jewellers Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Pritam Singh Rajput, S/O. Hukam Singh Vs the State of Rajasthan

Ghanshyam Das Mina Vs State of Raj and Anr.

M/S. Prateek Minerals Vs State of Rajasthan

Khemchand Kumawat S/O Shri Jagannath Kumawat Vs State of Rajasthan