Disposed

Bhabani Rabha v. Bodoland Territorial Council and 3 Ors.

Gauhati HC5 Aug 2023WP(C)/4039/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenging non-consideration of representation seeking refund of kist money for periods of disruption. Court directed Principal Secretary to decide representation on merits with speaking order within six weeks.

What did the court decide?

Directed Principal Secretary, BTC to consider the representation dated 23-12-2022 and pass a speaking order within six weeks.

Bhabani Rabha Vs Bodoland Territorial Council and 3… — Writ and Judicial Review | Gauhati HC (2023)

¶1

Page No.# 1/4

¶2

GAHC010155322023

¶3

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

¶4

Case No. : WP(C)/4039/2023

¶5

BHABANI RABHA SON OF LATE PUSPADHAR RABHA, RESIDENT OF TANGLA TOWN, P.O. AND P.S.- TANGLA, DIST.- UDALGURI, BTC, ASSAM, PIN- 784521.

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

BODOLAND TERRITORIAL COUNCIL AND 3 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, BODOLAND TERRITORIAL COUNCIL (B.T.C.), BODOFA NWGWR, KOKRAJHAR, DIST.- KOKRAJHAR, ASSAM. PIN- 783370.

¶8

2:THE JOINT SECRETARY FOREST AND WILDLIFE DEPARTMENT BODOLAND TERRITORIAL COUNCIL BODOFA NWGWR KOKRAJHAR

¶9

PIN- 783370.

¶10

3:THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS AND CHD FOREST B.T.C. KOKRAJHAR PIN- 783370.

¶11

4:THE DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER DHANSIRI FOREST DIVISION UDALGURI

¶12

Page No.# 2/4

¶13

DIST.- UDALGURI (BTC)

¶14

ASSAM PIN- 784509

¶15

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. M SARANIA

¶16

Advocate for the Respondent : SC, BTC

¶17

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MANISH CHOUDHURY

¶18

ORDER

¶19

Date : 05-08-2023

¶20

Heard Mr. M. Sarania, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. P. Nayak, learned Standing Counsel, BTC for all the respondents.

¶21

Having regard to the limited point raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner and as agreed to by the learned counsel for the parties, this writ petition is taken up for disposal at the motion stage itself.

¶22

The petitioner was granted Minor Mineral Concession Contract in respect of Sahabasti Sand Mahal for a period of 7 [seven] years by a Letter of Intent [provisional] dated 06.07.2015 by the Divisional Forest Officer, Dhansiri Forest Division, Udalguri at an annual price of Rs. 7,86,429/-.

¶23

Mr. Sarania, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that notwithstanding the disputes raised by the petitioner earlier as regards overlapping of boundaries between Sahabasti Sand Mahal, settled with him, and another newly created sand mahals, Nunoi Takankata [Namjola Sand Mahal], leased to one Nilamoni Boro, located nearby the petitioner’s Sahabasti Sand Mahal, the petitioner had faced certain other difficulties in extracting sands from

¶24

Page No.# 3/4

¶25

Sahabasti Sand Mahal, firstly, during the period from October, 2019 to December, 2019 due to protests, demonstrations, strikes, bandhs, etc. called by the civil societies of Assam in view of the Citizenship Amendment Bill, 2019 and later on, the Citizenship Amendment Act; and secondly, during the period from January, 2020 to March, 2020 in view of emergence of Covid-19 pandemic.

¶26

As the settlement period of 7 [seven] years was over in the year 2022, the petitioner has claimed that highlighting the difficulties he had faced in extracting sand from Sahabasti Sand Mahal during the afore-said two quarters i.e. October,- 2019 to December - 2019 and January - 2020 to March,- 2020, he submitted a representation before the respondent no. 1 on 23.12.2022 seeking inter alia consideration of his prayer for return of kist money for the aforesaid two quarters apart from release of his earnest money deposited at the time of granting settlement. As the said representation dated 23.12.2022 is yet to be disposed of, Mr. Sarania has submitted that the same should deserve consideration on merits.

¶27

Mr. Nayak, learned Standing Counsel, BTC has not objected to the prayer for disposal of the representation on merits.

¶28

As the learned counsel for the parties have submitted that the representation dated 23.12.2022 has not yet been disposed of, this Court is of the considered view that the Principal Secretary, BTC may take the said representation dated 23.12.2022 on board and after due consideration of the grievances raised by the petitioner on the basis of the relevant records, the Principal Secretary, BTC can dispose of the same within a reasonable period of time by passing a speaking order. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of directing the Principal Secretary, BTC to take the representation dated

¶29

Page No.# 4/4

¶30

23.12.2022 filed by the petitioner on board and after due consideration, dispose of the same on merits by passing a speaking order within a period of 6 [six] weeks from the date of submission of a certified copy of this order along with the copy of the writ petition along with annexures, at the office of the Principal Secretary, BTC by the petitioner. It is made clear that this Court has not made any observation as regards the merits of the claim of the petitioner and the respondent authorities shall consider the claim of the petitioner on its own merits and in accordance with law.

¶31

This order disposes of the writ petition. No cost.

¶32

JUDGE

¶33

Comparing Assistant

Bhabani Rabha v. Bodoland Territorial Council and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhabani Rabha v. Bodoland Territorial Council and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nural Islam Vs the State of Assam and 6 Ors.

Saidul Ahmed Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Abdul Zabbar Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Miran Ali Vs the State of Assam

Abdul Jabbar Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

M/S Difolu Associates Vs the State of Assam and 6 Ors.