Petitioner, second highest bidder in a sand sale process, claimed entitlement to the mining lease after the highest bidder's LoI was cancelled. The matter was dismissed for non-prosecution as the petitioner did not appear.
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
GAHC010018322016
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/3591/2016
SMTI. PUSPA DAS
W/OSHANTIMOY DAS, R/O DASPATTY, P.S. KARIMGANJ, P.O. KARIMGANJ, DIST- KARIMGANJ, ASSAM, PIN-788710
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 6 ORS REP. BY THE COMMISSIONER and SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, FOREST DEPTT., DISPUR, GHY-6
2:THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FOREST REHABARI KAMRUP METRO GHY-8 ASSAM 3:THE ADDL. PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FOREST KACHARIGHAT GHY-1 ASSAM 4:THE ADDL. PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FOREST REHABARI GHY-1 ASSAM 5:THE CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS SOUTHERN ASSAM CIRCLE SILCHAR CACHAR ASSAM
Page No.# 2/3
6:THE DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER KARIMGANJ DIVISION KARIMGANJ ASSAM
7:ASHISH NATH S/O SRI PARIMAL CHANDRA NATH R/O PALADAHAR P.O. BAZARGHAT P.S. RATABARI DIST- KARIMGANJ ASSA
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR.S ROY
Advocate for the Respondent : SC, FOREST
BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY
ORDER
Date : 18.4.2022
None appears for the petitioner on call. However Mr. D. Gogoi, learned Standing Counsel, Forest Department appearing for respondent Nos. 1 to 6 is present. None appears for respondent No.7.
The petitioner claims to be the second highest bidder in the sale process initiated by sale notice dated 5.9.2013 relating to Singla Sand Minor Mineral Unit No. 1 under Karimganj Division. In the said sale process, the respondent No.7 was the highest bidder and accordingly Letter of Intent was issued to him on 1.1.2014. Thereafter, the departmental authority cancelled the said LoI on the ground that the highest, bidder failed to fulfil his responsibilities. Thereafter the respondent authorities issued re- sale notice on 2.5.2016, which was challenged by the respondent No.7 in WP(C) No.2909/2016. This court directed for maintaining of status quo on the sale process by order dated 13.5.2016. The
Page No.# 3/3
petitioner claims that as the respondent No.7 who was the highest bidder has failed to comply with his obligation and as his LoI is cancelled, the petitioner being the second highest bidder is required to be settled with the sand Mahal.
Be that as it may, as none appears for the petitioner, this matter is dismissed for non prosecution.
Comparing Assistant
Smti. Puspa Das
State of Assam
Arun Dev Choudhury
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
