Uttam Karmakar v. The State of Assam and 8 Ors

ORDER

02.08.2024

Heard Mr. U. K. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner, who submits that the petitioner was settled with the mining rights of NKD-B-18-Salmara-Page No.# 3/5 Joypurghat Mining Contract Area, for seven years at the bid price of Rs. 2,39,11,000/-. The petitioner was issued a settlement order dated 18.05.2023 by the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest and Head of Forest, Government of Assam in this regard. The petitioner started mining of the minor minerals in the area settled with him and also deposited 25% of the annual contract money, as security deposit.

¶2The petitioner's counsel submits that the petitioner is aggrieved by the respondent authorities allowing some persons/firms to extract minor minerals in the area, near to the mining area settled with the petitioner. He submits that the mining of minor minerals by some persons in the area near the petitioner's mining area affects the business of the petitioner. He further submits that the other persons, who are mining minor minerals near the settled area of the petitioner, have been mining the same without being given any permits by the respondent authorities. He submits that mining rights can be given to persons only in terms of Rule 23(2) and 32 of the Assam Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2013.

¶3The petitioner's counsel thus prays that a direction should be issued to the respondents, not to issue work permits or patta permits in favour of any persons/firms/companies, for extracting minor minerals, within an area of at least a 3 KM radius from the mining area settled with the petitioner.

¶4Mr. R. R. Gogoi, learned counsel for the Forest Department and Mr. S. R. Baruah, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 8 & 9 submit that the petitioner has not been able to show as to what right of the petitioner has been violated, just because some persons are allegedly mining land near the mining Page No.# 4/5 area of the petitioner.

¶5I have heard the learned counsels for the parties.

¶6The submission made by the petitioner's counsel clearly goes to show that the mining rights given to the petitioner for NKD-B-18-Salmara-Joypurghat Mining Contract Area has not been encroached upon by any person. Further, the petitioner has not been able to show as to who are the persons, who are mining the land near the land of the petitioner and as to whether they had been illegally mining the said area.

¶7The above being said, the prayer of the petitioner in the writ petition shows that the petitioner does not want the respondent authorities to issue any work permit or patta permit for mining purposes to any persons/firms/companies for extracting minor minerals, within an area of at least 3 km radius from the area settled with the petitioner for mining. This Court does not find any reason to allow the prayer made by the writ petitioner, inasmuch as, the petitioner cannot have any right in respect of land beyond the contract mining area settled with him. Further, this Court cannot go on a roving inquiry, as to whether un-named and unknown persons are actually mining land with the permission of the respondents, which is near the petitioner's land and who are not encroaching upon the land settled with the petitioner for mining purposes.

¶8In the case of Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan vs. State of Maharashtra and Others, reported in (2013) 4 SCC 465, the Supreme Court has held that only those persons, whose enforceable rights have been Page No.# 5/5 violated, can approach a Writ Court under Article 226 of the Constitution for enforcement of their rights.

¶9In view of the reasons stated above, this Court finds that the petitioner cannot be said to be an aggrieved person, as no enforceable right of his has been violated and there is nothing to show that the respondents are not doing their duty. Thus, he has no locus standi to file this case. The writ petition, being not maintainable, is dismissed. JUDGE

Comparing Assistant

PageoNo.#o1/5 GAHC010149742024 ooooooo ooooooooooooooo ooooooooooooooooTHEoGAUHATIoHIGHoCOURTo (HIGHoCOURToOFoASSAM,oNAGALAND,oMIZORAMoANDoARUNACHALoPRADESH)o CaseoNo.o:oWP(C)/3826/2024o UTTAMoKARMAKARo SONoOFoLATEoMOHANoBASHIoKARMAKAR,o R/O-oVILLAGE-oBARUAHoBAZAR,o P.O.-oHOWLY,oDIST.-oBARPETA,oASSAM,o PIN-o781316. VERSUSo THEoSTATEoOFoASSAMoANDo8oORSo NOTICEoTROUGHoTHEoPRINCIPALoSECRETARYoTOoTHEoGOVERNMENToOFo ASSAM,o FORESToANDoENVIRONMENToDEPARTMENT,o DISPUR,oGUWAHATI-o6. 2:THEoCOMMISSIONERoANDoSECRETARYoTOoTHEoGOVERNMENToOFo ASSAM oFORESToANDoENVIRONMENToDEPARTMENT oDISPUR oGUWAHATI-o781006. 3:THEoPRINCIPALoCHIEFoCONSERVATORoOFoFORESTSoANDoHEADoOFo FORESToFORCE oASSAM oPANJABARI oGUWAHATI-o781037. 4:THEoADDITIONALoPRINCIPALoCHIEFoCONSERVATORoOFoFORESTS oLOWERoASSAMoZONE oGUWAHATI-o781001. 5:THEoCONSERVATORoOFoFORESTS oCENTRALoASSAMoCIRCLE Page No.# 2/5 GUWAHATI- 781029. 6:THE DIVSIONAL FOREST OFFICER NORTH KAMRUP DIVISION RANGIA DIST.- KAMRUP ASSAM PIN- 781354. 7:THE FOREST RANGE OFFICER BARPETA ROAD FOREST RANGE BARPETA ROAD DIST.- BARPETA ASSAM PIN- 781315. 8:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER BARPETA DISTRICT BARPETA ASSAM PIN- 781301. 9:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE BARPETA DISTRICT BARPETA ASSAM PIN- 781301 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. U K DAS, H THAKURIYA,MS. B D SARMAH Advocate for the Respondent : SC, FOREST, GA, ASSAM BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA