Gauhati High Court
Jaydeep Goala vs The State Of Assam And 4 Ors on 23 May, 2022
Page No.# 1/6
GAHC010094472022
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/3271/2022
JAYDEEP GOALA
SON OF LATE DINESH PRASAD GOALA, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE
PAILAPOOL, P.O. PAILAPOOL, CACHAR, PIN- 788098, ASSAM.
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS.
REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE
GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, ENVIRONMENT AND FOREST DEPARTMENT,
DISPUR, GUWAHATI- 781006.
2:THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FOREST AND HEAD OF
FOREST FORCE
ASSAM
ARANYA BHAWAN
PANJABARI
GUWAHATI
781037.
3:THE CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FOREST
SOUTHERN ASSAM ZONE
SILCHAR
PIN- 788001
ASSAM.
4:THE DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER
CACHAR DIVISION
SILCHAR
PIN- 788001
ASSAM.
5:THE STATE LEVEL ENVIRIONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Page No.# 2/6
AUTHORITY ASSAM
BAMUNIMAIDAM
GUWAHATI
PIN- 781021 REPRESENTED BY ITS MEMBER SECRETARY
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. B K MAHAJAN
Advocate for the Respondent : SC, FOREST
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MANISH CHOUDHURY
ORDER
Date : 23.05.2022
Heard Mr. P. Mahanta, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr. K.P. Pathak,
learned Standing Counsel, Environment & Forest Department for the respondent
nos. 1, 2, 3 & 4; and Mr. K. Gogoi, learned Central Government Counsel for the
respondent no. 5.
2. The petitioner has inter alia assailed a speaking order dated 26.04.2022
[Annexure-P] passed by the respondent no. 2 whereby the application
submitted by the petitioner for renewal of the mining contract in respect of the
mining contract area viz. "Chiri River Minor Mineral [Stone] Unit" ['the Mining
Contract Area', for short] has not been considered and a decision has been
taken to put the said Mining Contract Area into a fresh E-auction sale. The
petitioner has also assailed a Long E-auction Notice published by the respondent
no. 4 on 29.04.2022 [Annexure-O] whereby online bids have been invited to
settle the same Mining Contract Area under the provisions of the Assam Minor
Mineral Concession Rules, 2013 ['the 2013 Rules', for short].
3. Mr. Mahanta, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the
Page No.# 3/6
consideration of the petitioner's application for renewal was pursuant to a
direction made by the judgment and order dated 11.02.2022 [Annexure-M]
passed in a writ petition, W.P.[C] no. 921/2022, preferred by the petitioner
earlier. By the said judgment and order, a period of 18 months stipulated under
Rule 19[1] of the 2013 Rules was waived and a direction was made to the
petitioner to submit an application for renewal within a period mentioned
therein with a further direction to the Competent Authority i.e. the respondent
no. 2 to consider the application of the petitioner for renewal within the
parameters prescribed under Rule 19 and Rule 20 of the 2013 Rules. It was
further observed that till the disposal of the application for renewal, the
proposed tender process in respect of the Mining Contract Area in question shall
not be given effect to.
3.1. Mr. Mahanta, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that a case
for renewal of a mining contract is to be considered by the Competent Authority
after reaching a satisfaction with regard to 7 [seven] aspects outlined in sub-
Rule [1] of Rule 20 of the 2013 Rules. While Clause [i] to Clause [vi] of Sub-
Rule [1] have mentioned about 6 [six] specific aspects for the Competent
Authority to arrive at such satisfaction, clause [vii] with the phrase, "such other
matters as may be considered" is to be read as ejusdem generis with the
previous clauses i.e. Clause [i] to Clause [vi]. The impugned order dated
26.04.2022 passed by the Competent Authority does not prima facie indicate
that the Competent Authority was alive to the aspects stipulated in Rule 20[1] of
the 2013 Rules. The Competent Authority while passing the impugned order,
has considered only on the aspect of revenue, that too, on the basis of a report
from a subordinate authority. It is only after reaching the satisfaction that the
Page No.# 4/6
contractor has undertaken mining operation strictly in accordance with the
terms and conditions of the grant, etc. the Competent Authority has to exercise
the discretion to decide about the matter of renewal or otherwise which,
according to him, is evidently absent in the impugned order dated 26.04.2022.
4. Per contra, Mr. Pathak, learned Standing Counsel, Environment & Forest
Department has submitted that Clause [vii] of Rule 20[1] of the 2013 Rules is
exclusionary in nature and the Competent Authority has to reach a satisfaction
after considering all the aspects regarding feasibility of renewal or otherwise.
Clause [vii] of Rule 20[1] of the 2013 Rules cannot be treated as ejusdem
generis with previous Clause [i] to Clause [vi] of the 2013 Rules and the same
has to be given a purposive interpretation. By taking into consideration the fact
that the mining contract executed between the petitioner and the respondent
Environment & Forest Department was executed in the year 2014 and taking
into account the aspect of revenue which is likely to be earned as on date, the
Competent Authority has decided not to consider the application of the
petitioner for renewal. It is his submission that the discretion available to the
Competent Authority under Rule 19[7] of the 2013 Rules has been correctly
exercised and as such, no interference is called for either with the order dated
26.04.2022 or with the competitive bidding process initiated by the respondent
no. 4 by the Long E-auction Notice dated 29.04.2022.
5. From the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, it is noticed
that the provisions contained in Rule 18, Rule 19 and Rule 20 of the 2013 Rules
are in the forefront of this lis. The matter requires a deeper examination.
Page No.# 5/6
6. Issue notice of motion, returnable on 06.06.2022.
7. As Mr. Pathak, learned Standing Counsel, Environment & Forest
Department has appeared and accepted notice on behalf of the respondent nos.
1 - 4; and Mr. Gogoi, learned Central Government Counsel has appeared and
accepted notice on behalf of the respondent no. 5, no formal notice need to be
issued to the said respondents. Mr. Mahanta, learned counsel for the petitioner
shall furnish requisite nos. of extra copies of the writ petition along with the
annexures, to Mr. Pathak and Mr. Gogoi by tomorrow i.e. 24.05.2022.
8. The respondents shall file their responses on or before the returnable
date.
9. A perusal of the judgment and order dated 11.02.2022 reflects that the
Competent Authority was required to consider the application of the petitioner
for renewal within the parameters prescribed under Rule 19 and Rule 20 of the
2013 Rules. It is settled that when the Court records its findings as to the
manner in which the decision should be made, and then directs the authority to
consider the matter, the authority will have to consider and decide the matter in
the light of its findings and observations of the Court. On perusal of the order
dated 26.04.2022, it prima facie transpires that the Competent Authority has not
recorded its reasons in the order as to whether it had considered the application
of the petitioner for renewal by taking into purview the parameters of Rule 19
and Rule 20 of the 2013 Rules. It is noticed from the Long E-auction Notice
dated 29.04.2022 that the last date of submission of bids is upto 05-00 p.m.,
23.05.2022. Having regard to the same, it is provided that the till the returnable
Page No.# 6/6
date, the respondent authorities shall not proceed further with the bidding
process after closure of the submission of bids.
10. An endeavour will be made to consider the writ petition at the admission
stage.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
