The Rajasthan High Court has affirmed that the preservation of topsoil during brick kiln operations is not a discretionary environmental best practice but a mandatory statutory obligation under Rule 53 of the Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2017. This judgment closes a Public Interest Litigation by confirming that compliance is neither optional nor subject to administrative discretion.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, a resident of Khajuwala in Bikaner, filed a Public Interest Litigation alleging widespread environmental degradation caused by unregulated brick kiln operations. He contended that operators were excavating topsoil without preservation or restoration, leading to irreversible loss of fertile land and long-term agricultural harm. The petition sought judicial intervention to enforce existing rules and hold authorities accountable for inaction.
Procedural History
- The PIL was filed in 2019 seeking enforcement of Rule 53 of the Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2017
- Multiple notices were issued to respondents including the State Revenue Department, Pollution Control Board, and local revenue officers
- The Court directed the Tehsildar of Khajuwala to file an affidavit detailing compliance measures
- The affidavit submitted on 29 January 2026 confirmed full adherence to statutory requirements
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought a binding directive to ensure all brick kiln operators in Khajuwala preserve one foot of topsoil during excavation, store it separately, and restore it upon cessation of operations. He also sought regular monitoring by revenue authorities.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether Rule 53 of the Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2017 imposes a mandatory obligation on brick kiln operators to preserve and restore topsoil, and whether failure to enforce this duty constitutes a violation of environmental governance norms under state administrative law.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner argued that the statutory mandate under Rule 53 was being routinely ignored, with no systematic monitoring by revenue or pollution control authorities. He cited M.C. Mehta v. Union of India to emphasize that environmental protection is a constitutional duty under Article 21, and that administrative inaction in the face of clear statutory obligations amounts to a failure of public trust.
For the Respondent
The State, through the Additional Solicitor General, submitted that compliance was already being achieved. The Tehsildar’s affidavit confirmed that all 47 brick kiln operators in Khajuwala were preserving topsoil as required, and new permits were being granted only after restoration conditions were met. The State contended that the PIL had become infructuous due to voluntary compliance and that judicial intervention was no longer warranted.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the affidavit filed by the Tehsildar and found it to be specific, credible, and corroborated by the operational reality on the ground. The Court noted that Rule 53 explicitly requires brick kiln operators to "remove and preserve one foot of topsoil separately and store the same at another location" and that restoration must precede any new authorization. The Court held that the State’s submission demonstrated not merely compliance but institutionalized adherence.
"The statutory mandate under Rule 53 is not a recommendation but a condition precedent for lawful operation. The Revenue Authorities have discharged their duty by ensuring compliance across all operational units."
The Court rejected the notion that judicial oversight was still required, observing that the PIL’s purpose had been achieved through administrative action. It emphasized that topsoil preservation is a non-negotiable condition of mineral extraction, and that the responsibility for ongoing monitoring lies squarely with the local revenue officers.
The Verdict
The petition was disposed of as infructuous. The Court held that Rule 53 of the Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2017 imposes a binding obligation on brick kiln operators, and that revenue authorities bear personal responsibility for ensuring compliance through periodic surveys. No further directions were issued as compliance was confirmed.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Topsoil Preservation Is a Statutory Condition Precedent
- Practitioners must now treat Rule 53 as a mandatory licensing condition, not a guideline
- Any brick kiln operating without preserved topsoil is operating illegally, regardless of other permits
- Environmental NGOs can file fresh PILs if monitoring lapses, as compliance is an ongoing duty
Revenue Officers Are Liable for Non-Enforcement
- Local Tehsildars and Sub-Divisional Magistrates are now personally accountable for compliance
- Failure to conduct periodic surveys may attract administrative or even contempt proceedings
- Documentation of inspections must be maintained and made available for judicial review
Enforcement Shifts from Litigation to Administration
- Courts will no longer entertain PILs once statutory compliance is verified through credible affidavits
- Legal strategy must now focus on compelling authorities to produce inspection records, not seeking blanket orders
- The burden of proof shifts to the State to demonstrate continuous compliance, not to the petitioner to prove violation
