Gauhati High Court
Colliery vs The State Of Assam And 5 Ors on 18 February, 2022
Page No.# 1/5
GAHC010018902022
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/1039/2022
KUMAR PRADHAN
S/O BHAKTA BAHADUR PRADHAN, SETTLEMENT HOLDER OF MINOR
MINERAL CONTRACT AREA NO. DIG-7 OF 2015-22 AND A R/O BORGOLAI
COLLIERY, P.O.-MARGHERITA, DIST-TINSUKIA, ASSAM
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 5 ORS
REPRESENTED BY COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY REVENUE AND
DISASTER MANAGEMENT, GOVT. OF ASSAM, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-6
2:THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF FOREST
GOVT. OF ASSAM
DISPUR
GUWAHATI-6
3:THE CONSERVATOR OF FOREST
TINSUKIA DIVISION
DIST-TINSUKIA
ASSAM
PIN-786125
4:THE DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER
DIGBOI DIVISION
DIGBOI
P.O.-DIGBOI
DIST-TINSUKIA
ASSAM
PIN-786125
5:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
Page No.# 2/5
DIST-TINSUKIA
ASSAM
PIN-786125
6:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
DIST-TINSUKIA
ASSAM
PIN-78612
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. I A TALUKDAR
Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KALYAN RAI SURANA
ORDER
Date : 18-02-2022
Heard Mr. I.A. Talukdar, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. J.
Handique, learned standing counsel for the respondent no.1 Mr. P.N. Goswami,
learned additional Advocate General for the State respondent nos. 2, 3 and 4
and Mr. B. Deori, learned Govt. Advocate appearing for the respondent no.5 and
6.
2. The case of the petitioner is that he was allotted Minor Mineral
Contract Area DIDG No.7 of 2014-22 as per the terms and conditions of the said
agreement. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that during his
tenure some unscrupulous elements have been disturbing the petitioner and
preventing him from transporting materials from the Mining contract area which
compelled the petitioner to approach the Court by filing WP(C) 1382/2020 and
this Court by order dated 19.04.2021 closed the writ petition by permitting the
petitioner to file a fresh representation before the respondent no.5 therein and
Page No.# 3/5
it was provided that the respondent no.5 after hearing the petitioner shall pass
a speaking order, thereby disposing of the representation. Accordingly, the
petitioner had submitted a fresh representation dated 26.04.2021 before the
respondent no.4 herein.
3. It is submitted at the Bar by the learned counsel for the petitioner that
the said representation was disposed of and the petitioner continued the mining
contract. It is projected that for the disturbance, the petitioner was unable to
operate the mining contract for around 495 days. Accordingly, the petitioner has
submitted a representation dated 26.04.2021 to the respondent no.4 followed
by representation dated 23.11.2021. Another representation was made to the
Sub-Divisional Officer (Civil), Margherita Sub-Division on 21.12.2021. It is
further projected that without disposing of the representations submitted by the
petitioner, the respondent authorities have issued a Short E-Auction Notice
dated 18.01.2022 for the same mining area and accordingly, aggrieved by the
issuance of notice inviting tender without disposing of the representations, the
petitioner has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India with a prayer for direction upon the respondent authorities to consider
extension of the Mining contract for 495 days and for suspending the Short-e-
Auction notice inviting tender.
4. The learned Additional Advocate General has submitted that under the
Assam Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2013, there is no provision for extension
of the mining contract. He submits that the said provision has been cemented
by the decision of the Supreme Court of India rendered in the case of
Dharmendar Kr. Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and ors., reported in 2021 (1)
Page No.# 4/5
SCC 93. It is submitted that following the said decision there were several
judgment and order by this Court on the same point. He has also submitted that
the power to grant remission is perhaps not available to the Divisional Forest
Officer or to the Sub-Divisional Officer (Civil) and therefore, the appropriate
authority to consider the representation for remission, if any, would be the
Principal Chief Conservator of Forest and Head of Forest Force. He further
submits that in so far as the prayer for extension of the mining lease is
concerned, as the rules do not provide for the same, it would not be possible for
the Forest officials to consider the said prayer.
5. Having observed that there is no provision in the Assam Minor Mineral
Concession Rules, 2013 the Court is disinclined to grant any relief to the
petitioner in respect of that prayer.
6. Nonetheless, it would be open to the petitioner to submit a fresh
representation before the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest and Head of
Forest Force, Assam for remission of royalty, if so advised along with a certified
copy of this order. It is needless to observe that if such a representation is
submitted by the petitioner, the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest and Head
of Forest Force, Assam shall dispose of the same. However, if any other
authority is empowered to consider such prayer, the representation of the
petitioner shall be transmitted to the said authority. The representation shall be
disposed of preferably within a period of 3(three) weeks from the date of receipt
of a certified copy of the order along with such representation with intimation to
the petitioner at his e-mail address to be provided by the petitioner.
Page No.# 5/5
7. The writ petition stands closed with observations as indicated above.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
