[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Urn: Cw / 43600U / 2025Prakriti Sarthi ... vs State Of Rajasthan on 28 April, 2026

[2026:RJ-JP:17138-DB]
[2026:RJ-JD:19137-DB]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR

(1). D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 19341/2025

1. Dinesh Kumawat Son Of Shri Nemi Chand Kumawat, Aged
About 36 Years, Resident Of Ward No.18, Nawa City,
Didwana Kuchaman, Rajasthan.
2. Chetan Prakash Son Of Shri Lala Ram, Aged About 32
Years, Resident Of Beed Ka Rasta, Nawa City, Didwana
Kuchaman, Rajasthan.
3. Pushkar Son Of Shri Mangi Lal, Aged About 36 Years,
Resident Of Beed Ka Rasta, Nawa City, Didwana
Kuchaman, Rajasthan.
4. Nanda Ram Kumawat Son Of Shri Gheesa Ram, Aged
About 42 Years, Resident Of Beed Ka Rasta, Nawa City,
Didwana Kuchaman, Rajasthan
----Petitioners
Versus

1. Union Of India, Through Secretary, Ministry Of
Environment, Forest And Climate Change, CGO Complex,
Lodhi Road, New Delhi.
2. State Of Rajasthan Through Chief Secretary, Secretariat,
Jaipur.
3. State Of Rajasthan Through Principal Secretary, Forest
Department, Secretariat, Jaipur.
4. Union Of India Through Secretary, Central Wetlands
Regulatory Authority, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New
Delhi.
5. Hindustan Salt Limited (HSL) Through Its Chairman And
Managing Director, G-229, Sitapura Industrial Area,
Jaipur-302022.
6. Sambhar Salts Limited Through Chairman And Managing
Director, G-229, Sitapura Industrial Area, Jaipur.
7. Sjvn Green Energy Limited, (Wholly-Owned Subsidiary Of
The Public Sector Company Sjvn) (Satluj Jal Vidyut
Nigam) Through Its Chairman And Managing Director, 7A,

(Uploaded on 01/05/2026 at 11:19:26 AM)
(Downloaded on 04/05/2026 at 03:53:18 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:17138-DB] (2 of 15) [CW-19341/2025]

Seventh Floor, Naval Corporate Tower, J.L.N. Marg, Near
Jawahar Circle, Jaipur
8. Rajasthan State Wetland Authority, Through Its Member
Secretary, Food Building, Secretariat, Jaipur, Through Its
Member Secretary.
9. District Collector, Didwana-Kuchaman, Rajasthan.

----Respondents
Connected With

(2). D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6539/2017
Sou Motu
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Secretary, Ministry of Environment and Forest and Climate
Change, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi, Union of India.
2. Secretary, Central Wetlands Regulatory Authority, CGO
Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi, Union of India.
3. Chief Secretary, State of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur
4. Principal Secretary, Forest Department, State of Rajasthan,
Secretariat, Jaipur.
----Respondent

(3). D.B. Civil Contempt Petition No. 988/2023
Hindustan Salts Ltd. (Hsl), Having Its Office At G-229, Sitapura
Industrial Area, Jaipur-302022 Through Its Authorized Signatory
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Dr. Amit Yadav, Collector District Nagaur, Collectorate
Nagaur, Rajasthan 341001
2. Mr. Wasim Akram, Sarpanch Gram Panchayat Marwar
Balia, Tehsil Deedwana, District Nagaur 341303
----Respondents

(4). D.B. Civil Contempt Petition No. 116/2026
1. Suo Moto
----Petitioners

(Uploaded on 01/05/2026 at 11:19:26 AM)
(Downloaded on 04/05/2026 at 03:53:18 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:17138-DB] (3 of 15) [CW-19341/2025]

Versus
1. Commodre Kamlesh Kumar(Retd.)., The Then Chairman
And Managing Director Hindustan Salt Limited (Hsl), G-
229, Sitapura Industrial Area, Jaipur-302022.
2. Ajay Kumar Singh, Chief Executive Officer, Chairman And
Managing Director, Sjvn Geen Energy Limited Wholly
Owner Subsidiary Of The Public Sector Company Sjvn)
(Satluj Jal Vidyut Nigam, 7A, 7Th Floor, Naval Corporate
Tower, Jln Marg, Near Jawahar Circle, Jaipur.
3. Harsh Verma, Chief Executive Officer, Sambhar Salts
Limited, G-229, Sitapura Industrial Area, Jaipur.
----Respondents

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
AT JODHPUR
(5). D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 24108/2025
1. Prakriti Sarthi Foundation, Having Registered Office At T-
401, 3Rd 190 Liions, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur, (Rajasthan)
302021 (Registration No. 093437) Through Its Director
Sukh Ram Choudhary S/o Shri Shiv Lal Choudhary, Age
About 63 Years, Resident Of Near Iti Circle, Shastri
Nagar Colony, Basni Road, Nagaur.
2. Pawan Kumar Modi S/o Shri Ram Gopal Modi, Aged
About 58 Years, Resident Of Purani Dhan Mandi Nawa,
Tehsil Nawa, District Deedwana-Kuchaman.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Department Of
Energy, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. Rajasthan Renewable Energy Corporation Limited,
Through Its Executive Director, E-167, Yudhisthir Marg
C-Scheme, Jaipur.
3. Rajasthan Urja Vikas Nigam Limited, Through Its Chief
Engineer, Registered Office At Vidhyut Bhawan, Janpath,
Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur.
4. District Collector, Deedwana-Kuchaman.
5. Tehsildar, Nawa District Deedwana-Kuchaman.

(Uploaded on 01/05/2026 at 11:19:26 AM)
(Downloaded on 04/05/2026 at 03:53:18 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:17138-DB] (4 of 15) [CW-19341/2025]

6. Municipal Board Nawa, Through Its Executive Officer
Nawa, Tehsil Nawa, District Deedwana-Kuchaman.
7. Senior Town Planner, Ajmer.
8. M/s S.j.v.n. Green Energy Ltd., Through Its Director
Address At 7-A, 7Th Floor, Nawal Corporate Tower, Jln
Marg, Near Jawahar Circle Jaipur.
9. Sambhar Salts Ltd., Through Its General Manager,
Sambhar Lake Sambhar, District Jaipur.
10. Union Of India, Through Its Secretary Department Of
Environment, Forest And Climate Change, New Delhi.
----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) in : Mr. Moti Singh
CWP No.24108/2025 Mr. Prashant Kachhawa

For Petitioner(s) in : Mr. R.B. Mathur, Sr. Adv. assisted by
CWP Nos. Mr. Amit Malani, Mr. Manish Bhodiwal
19341/2025, Mr. Falak Mathur, Mr. Yug Singh
6539/2017, Mr. Utsal Verma, Mr. Salim Khan Gori,
988/2023, 116/2026 Mr. Chandra Mammani on behalf of
Mr. Kapil Sharma through VC
For Respondent(s) in : Mr. Mahaveer Bishnoi, AAG
CWP No.24108/2025 Mr. Arpit Sharma for
Mr. Nathu Singh Rathore, AAG
Mr. Ramavtar Sikhwal
Mr. Akshay Nagori
Mr. Vaibhav Bhansali

For Respondent(s) in : Mr. Tushar Mehta, Senior Advocate
CWP Nos. (Solicitor General of India) through
19341/2025, VC assisted by
6539/2017, Mr. Lokendra Singh Kachhawa
988/2023, 116/2026 Mr. Bharat Vyas, Sr. Adv.-cum-A.S.G.
through VC assisted by Mr. C.S. Sinha
Mr. Dev Yadav,
Ms. Anushka Khandelwal and
Mr. Kapil Vyas
Mr. Rajendra Prasad, Sr. Adv.-cum-
A.G. assisted by
Mr. Sheetanshu Sharma and
Ms. Dhriti Laddha, Mr. Tanay Goyal
Ms. Parinitoo Jain through VC
Commodre Kamlesh Kumar Ex-CMD,
HSL/SSL, present in person through
VCK

(Uploaded on 01/05/2026 at 11:19:26 AM)
(Downloaded on 04/05/2026 at 03:53:18 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:17138-DB] (5 of 15) [CW-19341/2025]

HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEET PUROHIT

Judgment

Date of conclusion of Arguments : 17th April, 2026
Date on which judgment was reserved : 17th April, 2026
Whether the full judgment or only the
operative part is pronounced : Full judgment

Date of pronouncement : 28th April, 2026

(Per Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice)

1. The present application has been preferred by the applicant-

respondent primarily praying for vacation of the interim order

dated 17.12.2025, for permitting the respondent to proceed with

the establishment of the proposed 100 MW Solar Power Project at

Khasra No. 1174, Village Nawa, District Nagaur, Rajasthan and

dismissal of the stay application with exemplary costs.

2. It has been contended by the Learned Counsel for the

applicant-respondent that the writ petition has been filed

suppressing material facts, particularly the pendency of

proceedings being O.A. No. 143/2025 (CZ) titled Rajendra Kumar

& Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors. before the Hon'ble National Green

Tribunal, Central Zone, Bhopal. It is submitted that the said

proceedings pertain to the very same project and involve residents

of the same village, and therefore the plea of ignorance taken by

the writ petitioners is wholly untenable.

3. It is further contended that the Learned National Green

Tribunal, while entertaining the said Original Application, has

neither stayed the project nor restrained the respondents from

proceeding further. Rather, by order dated 15.10.2025, a

(Uploaded on 01/05/2026 at 11:19:26 AM)
(Downloaded on 04/05/2026 at 03:53:18 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:17138-DB] (6 of 15) [CW-19341/2025]

Committee was constituted to examine the factual and legal

aspects of the project. The applicant submits that all relevant

documents were furnished before the Committee and local

stakeholders were duly heard.

4. He has also pointed out that the project in question, being a

Solar Power Project, falls within the "White Category" as notified

under the Rajasthan Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution)

Rules, 1975 and the Rajasthan Air (Prevention and Control of

Pollution) Rules, 1983, and further clarified by the Rajasthan State

Pollution Control Board. It is submitted that such projects do not

require prior environmental clearance in view of the Office

Memorandum dated 13.05.2011 issued by the Ministry of

Environment and Forests under the EIA Notification, 2006.

5. The Learned Counsel further submits that the project site at

Khasra No. 1174 is situated beyond a distance of 5 kilometers

from the Sambhar Lake Wetland and is not part of any notified

wetland area. Reliance has also been placed upon a

communication issued by the Estate Officer under the Public

Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971,

clarifying that the land in question lies outside the wetland

boundary as well as outside the area involved in pending suo motu

proceedings before this Court.

6. It is contended that the petitioners have misled this Court

into passing the ex parte interim order dated 17.12.2025 by

suppressing these material facts and that the continuation of the

said order is causing serious prejudice to a project aimed at

generation of clean energy for the State.

(Uploaded on 01/05/2026 at 11:19:26 AM)
(Downloaded on 04/05/2026 at 03:53:18 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:17138-DB] (7 of 15) [CW-19341/2025]

7. This Court finds that certain material facts, particularly the

pendency of proceedings before the Hon'ble National Green

Tribunal and the absence of any interim restraint therein, were not

brought to the notice of this Court at the time of passing of the

order dated 17.12.2025.

8. The suppression of material facts is a matter of serious

concern and disentitles a litigant from equitable relief.

9. At the same time, this Court cannot be unmindful of the

environmental concerns raised and the necessity of ensuring that

developmental activities proceed in accordance with law and with

due safeguards.

10. In this regard, guidance may be drawn from the judgment of

the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Harbinder Singh Sekhon v. State

of Punjab, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 204, wherein it has been held

that the doctrine of sustainable development requires a balance

between environmental protection and developmental needs, and

that projects of public importance ought not to be stalled outright,

but may be permitted subject to appropriate safeguards. The

Hon'ble Apex Court has observed as follows-

"54. As a general rule, this Court exercises
circumspection in interfering with technical
classifications and regulatory frameworks
formulated by expert bodies. Matters such as
industrial categorisation and pollution indices
ordinarily fall within the domain of specialised
authorities, and judicial review is not invoked
merely because a different regulatory choice is
possible. Intervention is confined to cases where
the decision-making process or its consequences
transgress constitutional limits.
55. However, this principle of restraint cannot
apply where a regulatory classification has the
direct and foreseeable effect of diluting safeguards
that protect fundamental rights. When a
classification decision results in a blatant erosion

(Uploaded on 01/05/2026 at 11:19:26 AM)
(Downloaded on 04/05/2026 at 03:53:18 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:17138-DB] (8 of 15) [CW-19341/2025]

of preventive protections governing exposure to
environmental hazards, the issue ceases to be a
matter of technical regulation alone and assumes
constitutional significance.
56. This Court has repeatedly recognised that
while judicial restraint is the norm in matters
involving policy choices and expert regulation,
environmental adjudication occupies a distinct
constitutional space. Where executive or
regulatory action has the effect of exposing
communities to foreseeable environmental harm
or diluting preventive safeguards that protect life
and health, judicial intervention is not an act of
activism but a discharge of constitutional duty.
This position has been consistently affirmed in
landmark decisions such as Vellore Citizens'
Welfare Forum v. Union of India (Supra), M.C.
Mehta v. Union of India (Shriram - Oleum Gas)13,
Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of
India14, and A.P. Pollution Control Board v. Prof.
M.V. Nayudu15, where this Court held that when
scientific uncertainty coexists with a credible risk
to human health or the environment, courts must
err on the side of protection. These decisions
underscore that environmental governance is not
immune from constitutional scrutiny, and that
judicial intervention becomes imperative where
regulatory choices undermine the fundamental
right to a clean and healthy environment
guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of
India.
......

58. The right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution of India encompasses the right to a clean and healthy environment. Preventive environmental safeguards, including siting norms, are the means by which this right is protected. Where such safeguards are relaxed without a demonstrable and reasoned basis showing that the underlying risk has been materially reduced, the resulting action infringes the substantive content of Article 21. Further, Article 14 of the Constitution of India also comes into the picture.

A regulatory downgrade that weakens environmental protection must bear a rational nexus to the object of safeguarding life and health. In the absence of a proportionate and scientifically substantiated justification, such dilution is arbitrary. Arbitrariness that impacts life and health cannot be sustained under constitutional scrutiny.

59. The precautionary principle which was recognized as the law of the land by this Court under Article 21 of the Constitution of India in Vellore Citizens' Welfare Forum v. Union of India (Supra), and which underlines environmental governance in this country, mandates that where there is a plausible risk of harm, regulatory

(Uploaded on 01/05/2026 at 11:19:26 AM)

[2026:RJ-JP:17138-DB] (9 of 15) [CW-19341/2025]

frameworks must err on the side of protection. In the present case, the revised categorisation prioritises sectoral differentiation over preventive protection, without adequately addressing exposure risks in sensitive contexts. This Court does not interfere with classification merely because it concerns industrial activity. The present intervention is warranted because the impugned actions have the effect of lowering the constitutional minimum of protection guaranteed to affected communities. Where regulatory action compromises fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India, judicial review becomes a constitutional necessity rather than an intrusion into policy.

60. Before we proceed to the operative directions, it is necessary to underscore, in clear terms, the constitutional balance that must govern questions of development and environmental protection. Economic development and industrial growth are legitimate and important objectives of the State. However, in a constitutional framework founded on the rule of law, development is not an abstract or absolute goal. It is conditioned by the non- derogable obligation to protect life, health, and environmental integrity. Development that undermines these foundational values ceases to be constitutionally permissible development.

61. We believe that the doctrine of sustainable development is not a slogan of compromise but a principle of prioritisation. It requires that when developmental activity poses a credible risk to human health or environmental safety, regulatory frameworks must err on the side of protection. The Constitution does not permit a trade-off where civilian life and health are exposed to foreseeable harm on the assumption that economic benefit or industrial facilitation justifies such exposure. Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India do not tolerate a regulatory calculus that treats environmental safety as negotiable.

.........

63. Equally important is the recognition that environmental harm, once caused, is often irreversible or incapable of full remediation. Public health consequences, degradation of air quality, and long-term ecological damage cannot be undone by subsequent regulatory correction. It is for this reason that environmental regulation is designed to be preventive rather than reactive. A regulatory framework that allows risk to materialise first and seeks to address consequences later is fundamentally incompatible with constitutional environmental jurisprudence.

64. At the same time, we reiterate that this Court does not ordinarily interfere with technical

(Uploaded on 01/05/2026 at 11:19:26 AM)

[2026:RJ-JP:17138-DB] (10 of 15) [CW-19341/2025]

classifications or policy determinations made by expert bodies. Judicial restraint in matters of regulatory policy remains a settled principle. However, restraint cannot extend to abdication. Where regulatory action results in a lowering of the constitutional minimum of protection guaranteed to citizens, particularly in matters affecting life and health, judicial intervention becomes a constitutional obligation. The present case falls squarely within that exceptional category."

Thus, it is evident that while courts ordinarily defer to expert

regulatory frameworks, such deference is not absolute. Where

regulatory action dilutes environmental safeguards and threatens

the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14 and 21,

judicial intervention becomes imperative. The doctrine of

sustainable development mandates that developmental activities

proceed only with adequate protective measures. Consequently,

any action that lowers the constitutional threshold of

environmental protection cannot be sustained in law. The present

petition, therefore, warrants scrutiny on the touchstone of these

settled principles.

11. Vide order dated 17-03-2026, we had directed the Additional

District & Sessions Judge No.1, Sambhar Lake, District Jaipur to

file a fresh report with respect to Khasra no.1174 of village Nawa

City (Shaher). The report has been filed on 02-04-2026 stating

that the said Khasra is not a wetland and there is no water body

existing in that Khasra. Also, the particular Khasra is not

connected to the main Sambhar Lake and it is neither a salt area,

wetland or buffer zone of Sambhar Lake.

(Uploaded on 01/05/2026 at 11:19:26 AM)

[2026:RJ-JP:17138-DB] (11 of 15) [CW-19341/2025]

12. We have carefully examined the report submitted by the

Additional District & Sessions Judge No.1, Sambhar Lake. So far

as the revenue record is concerned, it reflects that the nature of

the land is 'Lawan Kshetra' which means that it is a land which has

salt content. However, we agree with the report submitted by the

team of experts who assisted the Additional District Judge, which

states that the land is not part of the Sambhar Lake, nor it is a

wetland.

We also concur with the opinion advanced by the team of

experts that, having regard to the peculiar geographical location,

zoological features, and subterranean water composition, there

exists a substantial tract of land exhibiting saline characteristics.

However, the mere presence of such salinity, and its corresponding

classification in the revenue records as "lawan kshetra," does not

ipso facto render the entire land as forming part of the Sambhar

Lake or a designated wetland area.

In principle, a revenue entry such as "lawan kshetra" is

intended to denote the cultivability or nature of the soil. Such an

entry, in itself, does not establish that the land comprised in

Khasra No. 1174 constitutes a portion of the lake or any notified

wetland.

13. This petition is essentially filed to protect the wetlands in

Rajasthan. We have, therefore, proceeded very cautiously with

regard to this issue, more so because Sambhar Salts Ltd. was

allotted this land around the year 1950 as stated by the Ex-CMD

(SSL). The purpose of allotting the land to Sambhar Salts Ltd. was

to utilize the Sambhar Lake and the surrounding areas for

(Uploaded on 01/05/2026 at 11:19:26 AM)

[2026:RJ-JP:17138-DB] (12 of 15) [CW-19341/2025]

manufacturing salt. However, we cannot lose sight of the fact that,

although the nature of the land remains 'Lawan Kshetra', it may

not actually be used for salt manufacturing, and over time, the

land has become virtually unutilized, particularly as there is no

water present in that area.

14. On a specific query being raised with regard to the adjacent

land where salt was found to be manufactured, we have been

informed that same is being carried out by manual process of

collecting the groundwater, extracted by using bore pumps and

the land is neither a part of Sambhar lake itself, nor essentially

wetland as such.

15. We have also been further informed by the Managing

Director of Sambhar Salts Ltd., whom we heard personally, that

water never existed in that area, and that the Sambhar Lake is

approximately 2.25 kilometers away. It is only rarely, on account

of rainfall, that some water may collect in the said area.

It was further contended that along the stretch of land

measuring approximately 2.25 kilometers, situated between

Sambhar Lake and Khasra No. 1154, several residential buildings

as well as commercial establishments are already in existence.

It has also been urged that the land comprised in Khasra No.

1154 is neither directly connected to the lake or any wetland area,

nor is there any continuous and uninterrupted tract of land linking

it to the lake. This specific contention has not been rebutted by

the petitioner.

The absence of any such rebuttal lends further credence to,

and fortifies, the findings recorded in the report placed before us,

(Uploaded on 01/05/2026 at 11:19:26 AM)

[2026:RJ-JP:17138-DB] (13 of 15) [CW-19341/2025]

which concludes that the land in question does not form part of

Sambhar Lake or any notified wetland area.

16. So far as the Sambhar Lake is concerned, it is not merely

meant for the manufacturing of salt. Being the largest inland

saltwater lake in India, it also serves as a significant bird

sanctuary, with thousands of flamingos and various other kinds of

migratory birds flocking to Sambhar Lake during the winter

season. It is also an important breeding ground for these birds.

This ecological significance is not confined to the lake area alone,

but extends in and around the surrounding regions, including the

concerned Nawa City.

17. We, therefore, have a duty to protect the birds that flock to

this area during the winter season. While we recognize that the

country as a whole, and the State in particular, require a

substantial amount of electrical energy for various developmental

activities, the recent concept of harnessing solar energy through

the installation of solar panels has gained significant momentum

in addressing the scarcity of electricity in India.

18. The project in question, being undertaken under the aegis of a

Central Government agency, merits due encouragement yet at the

same time, it is necessary to ensure that ecological

considerations, particularly the protection of possible/proposed

avian habitats, are adequately safeguarded invoking

"precautionary principle".

19. With a view to maintaining a balance in respect of the possible

aviary habitat of migratory birds, we have asked the learned

Solicitor General to ensure that the area beneath the proposed

(Uploaded on 01/05/2026 at 11:19:26 AM)

[2026:RJ-JP:17138-DB] (14 of 15) [CW-19341/2025]

solar panels is designed in a manner that may serve as a

facilitative environment, rather than a hindrance, to their natural

habitat. In this regard, we deem it appropriate to direct that the

entity undertaking the installation of the solar panels shall suitably

increase the height of the panels so as to enable migratory birds

to nest, lay eggs, and breed beneath them without obstruction.

20. As an upshot of above observations, interim order dated

17.12.2025 is vacated.

21. We, therefore, permit the applicant-respondent No.7, SJVN

Green Energy Ltd., to proceed with the establishment of the solar

plant project in Khasra No.1174 in Nawa City, subject to the

following directions:

(i). It is made clear that, while establishing the solar plant and

laying the solar panels, adequate height of not less than 1.5

meters shall be maintained. The respondent company shall be at

liberty to increase the height, if deemed appropriate.

(ii). We also direct that if trees are required to be uprooted from

the area, the same shall be replanted thrice in number in the

adjacent areas.

(iii). As regards the inflow of water, there should be no restriction

on the inflow of water onto the land, which may be used by the

migratory birds during the rainy season and thereafter.

22. We say so as both the development works and the

maintenance of environment including the flora and fauna, should

be carried out in tandem. All the stakeholders shall, therefore,

take necessary steps in this regard.

(Uploaded on 01/05/2026 at 11:19:26 AM)

[2026:RJ-JP:17138-DB] (15 of 15) [CW-19341/2025]

23. We are informed that, on account of interim order passed

earlier, certain road blockages have occurred, affecting the

establishment of the solar plant, which have its obvious effects

owing to certain conditions in the contract between Hindustan

Salts Ltd. and Sambhar Salts Ltd., in joint venture with SJVN

Green Energy Ltd.