Prasanta Kumar Das Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

The petitioner herein has preferred this application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari for setting aside and quashing the impugned Communication No. ΡΕΜ.174336/183 dated 02.03.2023 issued by the Joint Secretary to the Government of Assam, Mines and Minerals Department by enlarging the scope of Assam Minor Minerals Concessions(Amendment) Rules, 2021 published in the Assam Gazette (Extraordinary) vide a Notification dated 07.10.2021.

¶27

The petitioner states that he is the absolute owner and in possession of a plot of land measuring 1 (one) Katha, 18.86 (eighteen point eighty-six) lessa, covered by Dag No. (New) 964 of K.P. Patta No. 513 of Revenue Village-Jyotikuchi, Beltola Mouza,

¶28

Page No.# 3/4

¶29

under Dispur Revenue Circle, in the District of Kamrup (Metro), Assam and has been regularly paying the land revenue and other taxes to the authority as and when required.

¶30

The case of the petitioners herein is that the petitioners herein proposed to construct buildings for their own use and for that purpose have sought for permission from the from both the GMC and the GMDA and these authorities had made it a condition precedent for deposit of forest royalty for the grant of the necessary permission.

¶31

It is the further case of the petitioners that the both the GMC as well as the GMDA are acting on the basis of the communication dated 02.03.2023, whereby the Joint Secretary to the Government of Assam Mines and Minerals Department had extended the ambit of the Notification dated 07.10.2021, even to private agencies.

¶32

The petitioners herein have assailed the communication dated 02.03.2023 issued by the Joint Secretary to the Government of Assam Mines and Minerals Department i.e. the respondent No.5 herein whereby the Notification dated 07.10.2021 by which the Assam Minor Mineral Concession Rules 2013 (for short, 'the Rules of 2013') which was amended was extended even to private agencies.

¶33

The learned counsel for contesting petitioners are at consensus that the subject matter is covered by the order dated 24.09.2024 named in WP (C) No. 4085 /2024. The operative portion of order dated 24.09.2024 is quoted below;

¶34

“ 19. In view of the above analysis, it is therefore the opinion of this Court that the impugned communication dated 02.03.2023 issued by the Joint Secretary to the Government of Assam, Mines and Mineral Department thereby stipulating that the amendments carried out by the Amending Rules would also apply to the private agencies is contrary to the Act of 1957 as well as the Rules of 2013 as amended by the Amending Rules. Accordingly, the impugned

¶35

Page No.# 4/4

¶36

communication dated 02.03.2023 is set aside and quashed.”

¶37

This judgment has been followed in order dated 11.12.2024 passed in WP(C) No. 3678/2024.

¶38

Accordingly, the writ petition shall also be covered by the aforesaid determination made, inasmuch as, the determination made in WP (C) No. 4085 /2024 (supra) is a judgment in rem and cannot be said to be a judgment in personam and will be applicable in all similar cases.

¶39

With the aforesaid observations, the present writ petition stands disposed of in terms of paragraphs 19, 20 & 21 of WP (C) No. 4085 /2024 (supra).

¶40

JUDGE

¶41

Comparing Assistant

Prasanta Kumar Das v. the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prasanta Kumar Das v. the State of Assam and 5 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

Asha Devi Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

M/S Drishti Enterprise and Anr. Vs the State of Assam and 10 Ors.

Chabi Bhoralee Vs the Real Estate Regulatory Authority and Anr.

Purnima Devi and Anr. Vs the State of Assam and Ors.

Smti Sati Kar and 8 Ors. Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Rabiyal Sheikh and Anr. Vs the State of Assam and 2 Ors.