[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Narayan Dangi vs State Of Rajasthan (2026:Rj-Jd:11909) on 12 March, 2026
[2026:RJ-JD:11909] (1 of 4) [CW-3324/2026]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3324/2026
1. Narayan Dangi S/o Shri Bhagga Dangi (Since Dead), Aged
About 76 Years, Aged About 76 Years, R/o 29, Dangiyon
Ki Bhagal, Shishvi Kurabad, Tehsil Girva, District Udaipur,
Rajasthan Through His Legal Representative
2. Kailash Chand Patel S/o Narayan Dangi, R/o 29, Dangiyon
Ki Bhagal, Shishvi Kurabad, Tehsil Girva, District Udaipur,
Rajasthan.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through District Collector Udaipur,
Rajasthan.
2. The Director, Directorate Of Mining And Geology
Department, Mining Building, Udaipur, Rajasthan.
3. The Additional Director (Mines), Mining And Geology
Department, Zone Udaipur, Udaipur, Rajasthan.
4. Mining Department, Through Mining Engineer, Mining And
Geology Department,udaipur, Rajasthan.
5. Mining Engineering, Mining Udaipur, Rajasthan.
6. Superintendent Mining Engineer, Udaipur Circle, Udaipur,
Rajasthan.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. O.P. Sanghwa
Mr. B.L. Jat
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Lalit Pareek, GC
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEET PUROHIT
Order
12/03/2026
1. The present writ petition has been filed challenging the order
dated 03.12.2025, whereby Respondent No. 3 dismissed the
appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order dated
(Uploaded on 17/03/2026 at 10:21:31 AM)
[2026:RJ-JD:11909] (2 of 4) [CW-3324/2026]
30.11.2021, through which a penalty was imposed upon the
petitioner.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the appeal
was preferred as far back as in the year 2022. However, the
learned Appellate Authority has dismissed the said appeal on the
ground that during the pendency of the appeal, the Government of
India, vide notification dated 20.02.2025, included the minerals
'Quartz' and 'Feldspar' in the category of major minerals.
Consequently, Respondent No. 3, being a State authority dealing
with minor minerals, was held to be not competent to adjudicate
the said appeal. Accordingly, the said appeal was held to be not
maintainable for want of jurisdiction and was consequently
rejected.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Respondent
No. 3, while passing the impugned order dated 13.12.2025, has
not adjudicated the appeal on its merits and has instead dismissed
the same on the ground of lack of jurisdiction, thereby leaving the
petitioner without an effective remedy.
4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent, Mr. Lalit
Pareek, submits that no illegality has been committed by the
Appellate Authority in rejecting the said appeal in view of the
subsequent development, namely the notification dated
20.02.2025 issued by the Union of India, whereby the mineral in
question has been declared a major mineral. It is further
submitted that, in such circumstances, the petitioner has an
alternative remedy of appeal/revision as provided under the Mines
and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 ("Act of
1957") and Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2017
("Rules of 2017").
(Uploaded on 17/03/2026 at 10:21:31 AM)
[2026:RJ-JD:11909] (3 of 4) [CW-3324/2026]
5. Learned counsel for the respondent has relied upon the
judgment passed by this Hon'ble High Court in the case of Shyam
Siroya v. Union of India & Anr., S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.
2478/2019 decided on 26.02.2024. The relevant portion of the
said judgment is reproduced hereunder:
"It is also seen that revisional authority has erred in
passing the order dated 06.07.2018 (Annexure-12), as
upon conversion of the Major Mineral 'Quartz' into
'Minor Mineral' vide notification dated 10.02.2015, the
revision application filed under the Mineral Concession
Rules, 1960 could only be decided by it, however, after
the Notification dated 10.02.2015 came into existence
the revisional authority i.e. Joint Secretary, Ministry of
Mines did not have the jurisdiction to adjudicate the
revision preferred by the petitioner."
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
material available on record.
7. This Court finds that at the time of filing of the appeal, the
mineral in question, namely 'Quartz' and 'Feldspar', were
categorized as minor minerals, and the impugned order had been
passed by the State authorities. Consequently, the appeal was
preferred before the Appellate Authority in accordance with the
provisions of the Rules of 2017.
8. By virtue of the notification dated 20.02.2025, the minerals
in question were categorized as a major minerals; consequently,
the authorities under the Rules of 2017 no longer possess the
jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate the said appeal.
9. Thus, no illegality can be said to have been committed by
Respondent No. 3 in dismissing the appeal on the ground of lack
of jurisdiction. However, the order dated 30.11.2021, imposing
penalty upon the petitioner, cannot be permitted to stand without
(Uploaded on 17/03/2026 at 10:21:31 AM)
[2026:RJ-JD:11909] (4 of 4) [CW-3324/2026]
affording the petitioner an appropriate remedy to challenge the
same, as the petitioner cannot be left remediless.
10. Accordingly, the present writ petition is disposed of with
liberty to the petitioner to challenge the order dated 30.11.2021
before the competent authority under the Act of 1957 and the
Rules of 2017, by availing the remedy of appeal/revision as
provided therein.
11. In view of the fact that the petitioner had already preferred
an appeal in the year 2022, which came to be rejected by the
learned Appellate Authority-Respondent No. 3 in light of the
subsequent notification dated 20.02.2025, and the present writ
petition is being disposed of while granting liberty to the
petitioner, the revisional/appellate authority is expected to
consider these circumstances sympathetically while deciding the
petitioner's application seeking condonation of delay. It is further
directed that in the event the petitioner files any appeal/revision,
the same shall be considered and decided by the competent
authority as expeditiously as possible, strictly in accordance with
law.
12. With these observations, the present writ petition stands
disposed of.
13. The stay application and all other pending applications, if
any, also stand disposed of.
(SANJEET PUROHIT),J
33-yagya/-
(Uploaded on 17/03/2026 at 10:21:31 AM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
