- (1.) HEARD Mr. Ashwani Chobisa, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. G.S.Bapna, Advocate General with Mr. Veyankatesh Garg, for State of Rajasthan and Mr. S.S. Raghav, Additional Solicitor General for Union of India.
(2.) THE present challenge pertains to the validity of the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession (Second Amendment) Rules, 2012 (for short, hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules of 2012')being against the letter and spirit of the order dated 27.02.2012 passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in I.A. No.12-13 of 2011 in Special Leave Petition (C) No.19628-19629 of 2009 [Deepak Kumar etc. vs. State of Haryana and Others etc.]. An appropriate writ to restrain the State-respondents from issuing any mineral concession vis-a-vis the areas less than 5 hectares without the grant of environmental clearance from the Ministry of Environment and Forest, Government of India has also been sought for. Mr. Chobisa has urged with reference to paragraph 4.2 of the recommendations of the Ministry of Environment and Forest (for short, hereinafter referred to as the 'recommendations') as well as the observations made in paragraphs 12 & 17 of the order of the Hon'ble Apex Court as referred to hereinabove that the Rules of 2012 are in patent violation thereof and thus, is liable to be declared ultra vires. Consequently, the mineral concession, granted purportedly thereunder vis-a-vis areas less than 5 hectares, are void and the State-respondents ought to be restrained from doing so without obtaining environmental clearance from the Ministry of Environment and Forest, Government of India. The learned Advocate General, Rajasthan, in reply, has submitted that meanwhile, in compliance of the operative directions contained in the paragraph 12 of the Hon'ble Apex Court, the Rules of 2012 had been framed by strictly adhering to the letter and spirit thereof and the same has been laid before the Hon'ble Apex Court for its scrutiny. Referring to paragraph 4.4 of the recommendations, Mr. Bapna has further submitted that in terms thereof, a cluster approach as contemplated therein for small size mines is permissible and the Rules of 2012 do adequately provide for the same. According to him, the impugned Rules are not only in conformity with the listed recommendations as set out in paragraph 12 of the order dated 27.02.2012 of the Hon'ble Apex Court, the same being presently under scrutiny, no adjudication by this Court, as sought for, ought to be made. On being queried by us, learned counsel for the petitioner has not disputed the correctness of the submission advanced on behalf of the State-respondents that as on date the Rules of 2012 are under the scrutiny of the Hon'ble Apex Court.
(3.) IN this view of the matter, we are of the opinion, in the face of the backdrop set out hereinabove, that it would not be expedient on the part of this Court to examine the rival contentions bearing on the validity of the Rules of 2012 and undertake an adjudication on the basis thereof and pass necessary orders in consequence of such scrutiny. The Hon'ble Apex Court, being in seisin of the matter and as the Rules of 2012 as claimed by the State-respondents, has been framed in accordance with the directions contained in the order dated 27.02.2012 passed by it, we consider it appropriate to close this petition by leaving the petitioner at liberty to revive the instant proceeding, in case the cause of action survives, following appropriate orders by the Hon'ble Apex Court.;