Gauhati High Court
Assam (Bhorelli) Angling And ... vs The State Of Assam And 4 Ors on 7 June, 2024
Author: Sanjay Kumar Medhi
Bench: Sanjay Kumar Medhi
Page No.# 1/5
GAHC010074882024
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/1336/2024
in
WP(C)/614/2021 (D/O)
ASSAM (BHORELLI) ANGLING AND CONSERVATION ASSOCIATION(ECO
CAMP)
VILL. TARAJAN POTASALI
P.O. GAMANI
DIST. SONITPUR
PIN-784103
ASSAM
REP. BY ITS AUTHORIZED MEMBERS
SRI BIJOYANANDA CHOWDHURY
S/O. LT. GIRIJANANDA CHOWDHURY
R/O. CHOWDHURY TILLA
SARUMOTORIA
OPPOSITE DISPUR CAPITAL COMPLEX
DISPUR
GUWAHATI
PIN-781006
KAMRUP (M)
ASSAM AND SRI TRIDIB PHUKAN
S/O. LT. SIVA NATH PHUKAN
R/O. 10
CHITRACHAL
NABAGRAHA HILL ROAD
GUWAHATI-04
ASSAM.
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS
REP. BY THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY
ENVIRONMENT AND FOREST DEPTT.
GOVT. OF ASSAM
Page No.# 2/5
DISPUR
GUWAHATI-06.
2:THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS AND HEAD OF
FOREST FORCE
ASSAM
ARANYA BHAWAN
PANJABARI
GUWAHATI-781037
KAMRUP (M)
ASSAM.
3:THE CONSERVATOR OF FOREST
NORTHERN ASSAM CIECLE
TEZPUR
PIN-784001
ASSAM.
4:THE DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER
SONITPUR WEST DVISION
TEAPUR
PIN-784001
ASSAM.
5:THE FOREST RANGE OFFICER
CHARIDUAR FOREST RANGE
CHARIDUAR
PIN
DIST. SONITPUR
ASSAM.
------------
Advocate for : MR. K N CHOUDHURY
Advocate for : SC
FOREST appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS
BEFORE
Hon'ble MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI
Advocate for the petitioner : Shri KN Choudhury, Senior Counsel
Advocate for the respondents : Shri I. Borthakur, SC-Forest
Page No.# 3/5
Date of hearing : 07.06.2024
Date of Judgment : 07.06.2024
Judgment & Order
Heard Shri K.N. Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel for the applicant. Also
heard Shri I. Borthakur, learned Standing Counsel, Forest Department / opposite
parties.
2. The instant application has been filed in connection with WP(C)/614/2021
which was disposed of on 30.03.2023.
3. Shri Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel for the applicant has submitted
that challenge in the writ petition was the action of the respondents in the form
of Offence Report No. CH-35 whereby the members of the petitioner association
were termed as accused qua the offence under Sections 24(A) and 24(B) and
25 of the Assam Forest Regulation (AFR), 1891 and under Articles 2 (a) and 3
(b) of the Forest Conservation Act, 1980. This Court, vide the aforesaid
judgment has interfered with the impugned action and has held the same to be
unsustainable in law and was set aside. While disposing of the writ petition, the
interim order was made absolute.
4. The learned Senior Counsel has however, by referring to a communication
dated 12.06.2023 has submitted that the Department has taken a view that
since by the interim order only 10 persons, who were authorized by the
association, would be allowed to enter the area in question, the same
restrictions are being imposed.
5. The learned Senior Counsel for the applicant has submitted that the
aforesaid action has been put to challenge separately in WP(C)/4888/2023
Page No.# 4/5
wherein an observation has been made to seek clarification on the aforesaid
aspect and accordingly the present application has been filed.
6. The maintainability of an I.A. in a disposed of petition is not longer res
integra. Though a fresh cause of action cannot be raised by filing an I.A. in a
disposed of matter, clarification can be sought for as has been held by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of K.A. Ansari v. Indian Airlines Ltd.
reported in (2009) 2 SCC 164, the relevant portion of which is extracted
hereinbelow-
"17. It is trite that a party is not entitled to seek a review of a judgment
merely for the purpose of rehearing and a fresh decision of the case. It
needs little emphasis that when the proceedings stand terminated by final
disposal of the writ petition, it is not open to the court to reopen the
proceedings by means of miscellaneous application in respect of a matter
which provides fresh cause of action. If this principle is not followed, there
would be confusion and chaos and the finality of proceedings would cease
to have any meaning. (See State of U.P. v. Brahm Datt Sharma, [1987 (2)
SCC 179] At the same time, there is no prohibition on a party applying for
clarification, if the order is not clear and the party against whom it has
been made is trying to take advantage because the order is couched in
ambiguous or equivocal words."
7. This Court is of the view that when the entire impugned action was held to
be unsustainable in law and set aside by the judgment and order dated
30.03.2023, the observation that the interim order be made absolute could not
be given a restricted meaning of allowing only 10 persons to enter into the area
in question. Such restrictive meaning would be against the direction contained
Page No.# 5/5
in the judgment and order dated 30.03.2023. It clearly appears that the interim
direction was only to facilitate the Association to keep on functioning during the
pendency of the writ petition. This Court has also been informed that no further
appeal was preferred against the said judgment which has accordingly attained
finality.
8. Accordingly, the matter stands clarified that the direction which was given
in the interim order stood merged with the final order. It is further clarified that
the entire action of the respondents being held to be unsustainable in law and
set aside, the applicant would be entitled to the full benefits of such
pronouncement of this Court and there cannot be any restriction.
9. The I.A. accordingly stands allowed.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
