Raj HC initiates contempt for concealing solar project MOU at Ramsar wetland

Jaipur: The Rajasthan High Court has held that any act of entering into agreements or taking policy decisions affecting protected wetlands during the pendency of court proceedings, without disclosure to the court, amounts to interference with the administration of justice and attracts contempt jurisdiction.

A Division Bench comprising Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma and Justice Sangeeta Sharma observed that deliberate suppression of material facts from the court, particularly in matters concerning environmental protection and compliance with Supreme Court directions, undermines the rule of law and cannot be countenanced od.pdf.

The Bench reiterated that once a matter is sub judice and interim directions are operating, all authorities—especially government companies and their senior officers—are duty-bound to maintain complete transparency and seek leave of the court before taking any step that may alter the status quo.

These principles were laid down while hearing a batch of connected matters, including a writ petition filed by Dinesh Kumawat against the Union of India, a suo motu public interest writ registered pursuant to Supreme Court directions for protection of Ramsar Convention sites, and a contempt petition filed by Hindustan Salts Ltd.

The proceedings arise from long-pending litigation concerning the protection of Sambhar Salt Lake, a notified Ramsar wetland. The High Court has been monitoring compliance with Supreme Court directions issued in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 230/2001, requiring High Courts to ensure preservation of Ramsar sites within their jurisdiction.

During the course of hearing, the court noted that Hindustan Salts Ltd. (HSL), a Government of India company, had entered into a Memorandum of Understanding dated August 9, 2023, with SJVN Green Energy Limited for setting up solar power projects on land forming part of the Sambhar Lake region. This development was brought to the court’s notice by the amicus curiae.

The Bench recorded that the MOU was executed while the matter was actively pending before the High Court and while interim orders restraining further steps towards establishment of a solar plant at the site were in force. The court noted that no disclosure of the MOU was made to the court at any stage, despite repeated hearings and directions.

Taking a serious view, the court held that the actions of the Chairman and Managing Director of HSL, Commodore Kamlesh Kumar (Retd.), and the Chief Executive Officer of SJVN Green Energy Limited, Ajay Kumar Singh, prima facie amounted to an attempt to override and mislead the judicial process. The court observed that applications were moved before it without disclosing the existence of the MOU, thereby suppressing material facts.

The High Court further noted that Sambhar Salts Ltd. has leased out land for salt extraction and that the land bank of the company essentially forms part of the Sambhar Lake wetland ecosystem. Any activity affecting the area, the court observed, has serious ecological implications and requires strict judicial scrutiny.

Holding that the conduct disclosed a prima facie case under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, the Division Bench initiated suo motu contempt proceedings against Commodore Kamlesh Kumar (Retd.), Ajay Kumar Singh, and the newly appointed Chief Executive Officer of Sambhar Salts Ltd., Harsh Verma.

The Registry has been directed to register a suo motu contempt petition and issue summons to the concerned officers, requiring them to remain personally present before the court and to show cause why they should not be punished under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

The court also directed immediate restraining orders to stop the use of heavy machinery, including JCBs and trucks, in the Sambhar Lake region, and ordered the SHO, Sambhar Lake, and the Superintendent of Police to remove all such machinery and submit a status report supported by photographs and videos.

The matters have been listed for further hearing on February 11, 2026, with interim orders to continue.

—

Case Title
Dinesh Kumawat vs Union of India
Connected with:
Suo Motu vs State of Rajasthan & Others
Hindustan Salts Ltd. vs Dr. Amit Yadav

Case Numbers
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 19341/2025
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6539/2017 (Suo Motu)
D.B. Civil Contempt Petition No. 988/2023

Court
High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Jaipur Bench

Bench
Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma (Acting Chief Justice)
Justice Sangeeta Sharma