Kamal Sing Engjai Vs the Union of India and Ors.

REPRESENTED BY THE MEMBER SECRETARY STANDING COMMITTEE OF NATIONAL BOARD OF WILDLIFE MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT FOREST AND CLIMATE CHANGE MOEFF INDIRA PARIYAVARAN BHAWAN JORBAGH ROAD NEW DELHI

¶13

3:THE STATE OF ASSAM

¶14

REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVT OF ASSAM DISPUR GUWAHATI

¶15

4:THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE STATE OF ASSAM DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND FOREST DISPUR GUWAHATI

¶16

5:THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF GEOLOGY AND MINING

¶17

DISPUR GUWAHATI ASSAM

¶18

6:THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS AND HEAD OF FOREST FORCE JANATA BHAWAN DISPUR GUWAHATI

¶19

7:DIRECTOR OF GEOLOGY AND MINING GOVT OF ASSAM DAKHINGAON KAHILIPARA GUWAHATI ASSAM

¶20

Page No.# 2/4

¶21

8:THE STATE ENVIRONMENT IMPACT ASSESMENT AUTHORITY REPRESENTED BY ITS MEMBER SECRETARY BAMUNIMAIDAM GUWAHATI

¶22

9:POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD REPRESENTED BY ITS MEMBER SECRETARY BAMUNIMAIDAM GUWAHATI

¶23

10:THE KARBI ANGLONG AUTONOMOUS COUNCIL REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DIPHU KARBI ANGLONG

¶24

11:THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE MEMBER KARBI ANGLONG COUNCIL DIPHU KARBI ANGLONG

¶25

12:THE ADDITIONAL PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FOREST KARBI ANGLONG AUTONOMOUS COUNCIL DIPHU

¶26

13:THE DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER KARBI ANGLONG EAST DIVISION DIPHU

¶27

14:THE RANGE OFFICER

¶28

NORTH WESTERN RANGE PARKUP PAHAR KARBI ANGLONG

¶29

15:THE SECRETARY

¶30

DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND FOREST KAAC DIPHU

¶31

16:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER KARBI ANGLONG EAST DIPHU KARBI ANGLONG ASSA

¶32

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR P J DUTTA, A KALITA,MR B P BORAH,MR. AKHANDAKAR

¶33

Advocate for the Respondent : DY.S.G.I., SC, K A A C,SC, PCB,SC, FOREST,GA, ASSAM

¶34

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA ORDER

¶35

Date : 06.05.2025

¶36

Heard Mr. P. K. Goswami, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. P. N. Goswami, learned Addl. AG, Assam, Ms. Tinlung, learned counsel

¶37

Page No.# 3/4

¶38

appearing on behalf of Mr. B. Chakraborty, learned counsel for the Union of India and Mr. A. Chutia, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 10 to 15.

¶39

2. The petitioner has prayed for setting aside and quashing the impugned order dated 29.01.2025 and the consequential cancellation notice dated 04.04.2024 issued by the Divisional Forest Officer, Karbi Anglong East Division, Diphu and direct the respondent authorities to restore the mining operation of the petitioner at Nopani Sarthe Killing Gaon PP, Anglong PP land stone quarry.

¶40

3. The learned counsels for the parties submit that in a similar matter, this Court vide order dated 03.04.2025 had allowed the petitioner in WP(C) 1003/2025 to file a review against the communication issued by the DFO, suspending all mining operation in the Eco Sensitive Zone of Kaziranga National Park and Tiger Reserve and within default esz of KNP & Tr, in compliance with the Supreme Court’s order. They submit that the petitioner in WP(C) 1003/2025 submitted a review petition pursuant to the order dated 03.04.2025, which had been subsequently allowed by the concerned authority. The petitioner therein was allowed to do the mining operation after obtaining necessary clearance.

¶41

4. In the order dated 03.04.2025 passed in WP(C) 1003/2025, the learned Standing Counsel, KAAC had submitted that there was a provision under the Assam Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2013, particularly, Rule 67 which provides for a review by the Director/Principal Chief Conservator of Forest and Head of Forest Force, Assam. As the matter was a transferred subject to the KAAC, the authority would be the Karbi Anglong Autonomous Council.

¶42

5. Pursuant to the Review petition in WP(C) 1003/2025 being allowed, this

¶43

Page No.# 4/4

¶44

Court vide order dated 05.05.2025 disposed of WP(C) 1003/2025, by holding that the KAAC was to issue the revocation order of the suspension order issued by the Divisional Forest Officer, Karbi Anglong East Division, Diphu, within 1 (one) week and to permit the petitioner therein to continue with the mining operation.

¶45

6. In view of the above reasons, the petitioner herein is also given the liberty to file a review petition within a week from today before the concerned authority, as has been allowed in WP(C) 1003/2025. The concerned authority shall thereafter take a decision on the petitioner’s review petition, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The entire exercise should be concluded, within a further period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the review petition.

¶46

7. If the review is allowed by the concerned respondent, the petitioner should be permitted to continue with his mining operation.

¶47

8. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.

¶48

JUDGE

¶49

Comparing Assistant

Kamal Sing Engjai v. the Union of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kamal Sing Engjai v. the Union of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Sarma and Co. Vs the Union of India and 4 Ors.

Harmuj Ali Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Godrej and Boyce Mfg Co. Ltd. Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Binoy Bikash Bora and Anr. Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Keshab Kalita Vs the State of Assam and 6 Ors.

Raju Engjai Vs the Union of India and 16 Ors.