Discriminatory to Relegate Similarly Placed Mining LoI Holders to Revision: Rajasthan High Court Quashes Cancellations

The Court decided the lead petition and the 63 petitions in Schedule ‘A’ on the facts of Dalpat Singh Chudawat's case (paras 1-2). He applied for a mining lease in 2011 and received a Letter of Intent (LoI) on 29.12.2014 (para 3). In October 2015 the State, on the Principal Secretary (Mines)'s direction, cancelled all LoIs and prospecting licences issued between 01.11.2014 and 12.01.2015 without notice (para 4). After the High Court set that aside in terms of its 2017 Karni Mines order, a committee cancelled the LoI again on 10.02.2021 on the same ground (paras 5-7). The State relied on the Central guidelines of 30.10.2014 and the revision remedy under Section 30 of the 1957 Act (paras 18, 22).

The questions were whether Kamlesh Metacast governed the batch and whether the petitioners must be relegated to revision (para 24). Its facts were the same except that the company there had filed a revision; the State never challenged the revisional order in its favour, so a revision here would meet the same fate (paras 26-29). Following Krishna Marble, the alternative remedy did not bar the writ (para 30), and as the State's action did not conform to Article 14, which requires equals to be treated equally, the petitioners could come directly (para 31). In Karni Mines the State had not disputed that the LoIs were issued on merits; it now cited ineligibility (para 33). The cancellations rested on the same ground as in Kamlesh Metacast, where the guidelines were held prospective and no bar to applications pending under the then law (paras 34-36). Seeking dismissal for want of revision while that holder had obtained relief was ex facie discriminatory, lacked fairness, and would be arbitrary and unjust in a second round of litigation (para 37). Persons on the same pedestal deserved equal treatment, and on merits too the statute saved their applications (para 38).