Petitioner permitted to extract sand after forest allotment was cancelled three days later without prior notice. Court held cancellation unsustainable due to violation of natural justice and set aside impugned order.
Petitioner permitted to extract 300 cum sand as per allotment letter dated 07-01-2017.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Page No.# 1/3
GAHC010012112017
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C) 711/2017
1:TARUN CHETIA
S/O LT. BALAV CHETIA, R/O BOKOTA DHEKERICHIGA, P.O. NONGALAMORA, DIST- SIVASAGAR, ASSAM
VERSUS
1:THE STATE OF ASSAM and 3 ORS. REP. BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECY., FOREST DEPARTMENT
2:THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FOREST GUWAHATI
3:THE DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER T SIBASAGAR FOREST DIVISION SIBASAGAR
4:UMESH PHUKAN C/O SRI ADITYA DUWARAH R/O DUWARAH GAON P.O. NAZIRA SIBASAGAR- 78568
Advocate for the Petitioner : MS.R BEGUM
Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM
BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUMAN SHYAM
ORDER
Date : 05-02-2018
Heard Mr. P. Kataki, learned counsel for the writ petitioner. Also heard Mr. T.C. Chutia,
Page No.# 2/3
learned Addl. Sr. Govt. Advocate, Assam appearing for the official respondents.
Aggrieved by the order dated 10-01-2017 issued by the District Forest Officer (DFO), Sivasagar Division, Sivasagar cancelling the allotment order earlier issued in favour of the petitioner on 07-01-2017, the present writ petition has been filed.
The facts of the case lie in a narrow campus and can be briefly noticed as follows:
The writ petitioner is a Class-I contractor and he was awarded a contract for improvement and strengthening of Telelital Dehingia Gaon Ali road by the PWD, Assam. So as to execute the work allotted to him, the petitioner was in requirement of forest permit to extract 300 cum of sand from the Desang River.
Responding to the application filed by the petitioner, the respondent No. 3 had issued a letter dated 31-12-2016 asking the petitioner to deposit the sum of Rs. 53,550/- as royalty, VAT, income tax etc. and also to obtain Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) report from the concerned authority for the purpose of processing his request for granting the permit. Petitioner had complied with all such formalities and submitted a mining plan pursuant to which the order of allotment dated 07-01-2017 was issued in his favour granting him a permit to excavate 300 cum sand from the Desang river. However, within 03 days thereafter, the impugned order dated 07-01-2017 was cancelled by the DFO, that too, without serving any prior notice upon the petitioner.
The respondent No. 3 has filed an affidavit on 16-03-2017 responding to the plea raised in the writ petition.
From the said affidavit I do not find any statement to the effect that the allotment order was vitiated due to noncompliance of any rule or that the petitioner has committed default in complying with the terms and condition of such allotment prompting the impugned
Page No.# 3/3
action.
Mr. Chutia, learned Addl. Sr. Govt. Advocate submits that due to objection raised by the local public and the pressure mounted by them, the respondent No. 3 had to cancel the allotment by succumbing to such local pressure.
If the approval of the mining was issued by the competent authority after fulfilling all the necessary provisions of the rules and regulations whereby the petitioner had also deposited the requisite royalty amount along with mining plan, the petitioner can certainly be held to have a legitimate expectation to extract requisite quantity of sand as per the permit and therefore, respondent No. 3 could not have cancelled the said allotment merely acting on pressure from the local group without complying with the requirement of principles of natural justice. Since it is not in dispute that no prior notice was served upon the petitioner before the impugned order of cancellation dated 10-01-2017 was issued, I am of the view that the impugned order is unsustainable in law on account of violation of the principles of natural justice and is therefore, set aside.
Consequently, this writ petition stands allowed.
Petitioner be now be permitted to extract the 300 cum sand as per the allotment letter dated 07-01-2017. Notwithstanding this order it would remain open for the authorities to take appropriate steps in the matter, as may be permissible under the law after serving prior notice upon the writ petitioner.
Writ petition stands disposed of.
JUDGE
GS Comparing Assistant
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a forest permit allotted after deposit of royalty can be cancelled without prior notice.
Whether cancellation of an allotment due to local public pressure without notice violates principles of natural justice.
Tarun Chetia
The State of Assam
The Commissioner and Secy., Forest Department
The Principal Chief Conservator of Forest Guwahati
The Divisional Forest Officer T Sibasagar Forest Division Sivasagar
Umesh Phukan
Suman Shyam
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
