Bajri Lease Lol Hold... v. State Of Rajasthan A...

Factual and Procedural Background

The opinion addresses ongoing concerns over sand mining in the State of Rajasthan, described by the Court as extremely complicated and potentially chaotic, with the parties blaming one another for the situation. In C.P. (C) No. 674/2019 in SLP(C) No. 34811/2013, the petitioner appearing in person, Shri Naveen Sharma, suggested that the CEC be empowered to examine the issues relating to sand mining.

A member of the CEC, Shri Mahendra Vyas, was present before the Court and indicated that the CEC would comply with the Court’s mandate and submit a report with recommendations within six weeks. The Court recorded that the CEC would have the power to summon any person, including Government officials, obtain copies of any court proceedings on the subject, and hear representatives of the State Government, Dastak NGO, LOI holders, other stakeholders, and Shri Naveen Sharma.

The Court noted that illegal sand mining in Rajasthan is undisputed, including by the State, and directed immediate steps to stop such activities, with the State to file an action taken report within four weeks. The matter was ordered to be listed on a non-miscellaneous day at the end of April 2020 along with SLP(C) Nos. 34811/2013, 34134/2013, and Civil Appeal No. 9703/2013. Additionally, permission was granted to the petitioners’ counsel in SLP(C) Nos. 30739, 30740, 30741, and 30742 of 2019 to file spare copies.

Legal Issues Presented

The opinion addresses a procedural matter and does not frame distinct legal issues.

Arguments of the Parties

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court identified the sand mining situation in Rajasthan as highly complex and chaotic, with mutual accusations among stakeholders. It accepted the in-person petitioner’s suggestion to empower the CEC to conduct a comprehensive inquiry into the problems faced by traders, consumers, transporters, the State, and other stakeholders. The Court emphasized the need for the CEC to also investigate illegal mining and propose measures to curb it.

Acknowledging the representation by a CEC member present in court, the Court set a six-week timeline for the CEC to submit a report with recommendations, and granted the CEC broad procedural powers: to summon any person (including Government officials), to access court records, and to hear specified stakeholders and representatives.

On the basis that illegal sand mining is undisputed, including by the State itself, the Court concluded that such activity cannot be permitted to continue, noting that unbridled sand mining is likely to cause irreparable environmental damage. Consequently, it directed the State of Rajasthan—specifically the Collector and Superintendent of Police in each district—to take immediate steps to stop illegal sand mining and to file an action taken report within four weeks.

For case management and further supervision, the Court scheduled the matters to be listed at the end of April 2020 alongside the related SLPs and a civil appeal. It also issued an ancillary procedural direction permitting the filing of spare copies in certain related SLPs.

Holding and Implications

Holding: The Court empowered the CEC to inquire into issues relating to sand mining in Rajasthan and to submit a report with recommendations within six weeks; directed the State of Rajasthan—through the Collectors and Superintendents of Police in each district—to take immediate steps to halt illegal sand mining and to file an action taken report within four weeks; listed the matters for hearing at the end of April 2020 with related SLPs and a civil appeal; and granted permission to file spare copies in specified SLPs.

Implications: The order initiates a fact-finding and recommendation process under the CEC’s aegis, mandates immediate enforcement action against illegal sand mining to prevent environmental harm, and sets a supervisory timetable for further judicial oversight. The decision primarily affects the parties and administrative authorities involved and does not articulate any new legal precedent.