M/S. Klirdap Stone Crusher Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

¶1

Page No.# 1/7

¶2

GAHC010243192019

¶3

2025:GAU-AS:7122

¶4

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

¶5

Case No. : WP(C)/7548/2019

¶6

M/S. KLIRDAP STONE CRUSHER

¶7

A DULY REGD PARTNERSHIP FIRM HAVING ITS REGD OFFICE AT DOLAMARA, DIST- KARBI ANGLONG, ASSAM AND IS REP. BY ITS DULY AUTHORISED PARTNER, SRI RUSTOM RONGPHAR

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 5 ORS REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT OF ASSAM, FOREST DEPTT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI

¶10

2:THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY KARBI ANGLONG AUTONOMOUS COUNCIL DIST- KARBI ANGLONG DIPHU- 782460 ASSAM

¶11

3:THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FOREST (HOFF) TO THE GOVT OF ASSAM DEPTT OF ENVIRONMENT AND FOREST ARANYA BHAWAN PANJABARI GUWAHATI ASSAM PIN- 781037

¶12

4:THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FOREST KARBI ANGLONG GOVT OF ASSAM ENVIRONMENT AND FOREST DEPTT DIPHU DIST- KARBI ANGLONG ASSAM

¶13

Page No.# 2/7

¶14

PIN- 782460 5:THE DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER KARBI ANGLONG EAST DIVISION GOVT OF ASSAM DEPTT OF ENVIRONMENT AND FOREST DIPHU DIST- KARBI ANGLONG ASSAM PIN- 782460 6:THE ASSISTANT CONSERVATOR OF FOREST I/C NORTHERN RANGE DOLAMARA KARBI ANGLONG EAST DIVISION GOVT OF ASSAM ENVIRONMENT AND FOREST DEPTT DIPHU DIST- KARBI ANGLONG ASSAM PIN- 78246

¶15

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR G N SAHEWALLA, MD ASLAM,MS. S. TODI,MR. A CHETIA Advocate for the Respondent : SC, FOREST, SC, K A A C

¶16

Linked Case : WP(C)/7533/2019

¶17

M/S. JAPILANGSO STONE CRUSHER A PROPRIETORSHIP CONCERN HAVING ITS OFFICE AT JAPIJURI GAON SILONIJAN CIRCLE DOWAR BAGORI DIST- KARBI ANGLONG ASSAM AND IS REP. BY ITS DULY PROPRIETOR SRI SARKOI RONGPHAR

¶18

VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 5 ORS REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT OF ASSAM FOREST DEPTT DISPUR GUWAHATI 2:THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY

¶19

Page No.# 3/7

¶20

KARBI ANGLONG AUTONOMOUS COUNCIL DIST- KARBI ANGLONG DIPHU- 782460 ASSAM 3:THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FOREST (HOFF) TO THE GOVT OF ASSAM DEPTT OF ENVIRONMENT AND FOREST ARANYA BHAWAN PANJABARI GUWAHATI ASSAM PIN- 781037 4:THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FOREST KARBI ANGLONG GOVT OF ASSAM ENVIRONMENT AND FOREST DEPTT DIPHU DIST- KARBI ANGLONG ASSAM PIN- 782460 5:THE DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER KARBI ANGLONG EAST DIVISION GOVT OF ASSAM DEPTT OF ENVIRONMENT AND FOREST DIPHU DIST- KARBI ANGLONG ASSAM PIN- 782460 6:THE ASSISTANT CONSERVATOR OF FOREST I/C NORTHERN RANGE DOLAMARA KARBI ANGLONG EAST DIVISION GOVT OF ASSAM ENVIRONMENT AND FOREST DEPTT DIPHU DIST- KARBI ANGLONG ASSAM PIN- 782460 -----------Advocate for : MR G N SAHEWALLA Advocate for : SC FOREST appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 5 ORS

¶21

Page No.# 4/7

¶22

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA

¶23

ORDER

¶24

Date : 02-06-2025

¶25

Heard Mr. GN Sahewalla, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. HK Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. J Chutia, learned Standing Counsel, KAAC appearing for the respondents.

¶26

2. The petitioners had initially prayed for a direction to be issued to the respondents, to forbear from giving effect to the action of the respondent authorities in directing the petitioners to close the stone crusher unit of the petitioners located in Sarso Terang Gaon, Dolamara in the district of Karbi Anglong and to renew the stone crusher license of the petitioners for operating the same. However, the prayer of the petitioners has now changed with time. The prayer of the petitioners, as on today, is that they should be allowed to take away the stone crusher unit from the place where it has been stationed and also to take away the stone materials that had been extracted prior to the issuance of the order of the Honb’le Supreme Court in WP(Civil) 202/1995 [T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad vs. Union of India & Ors.].

¶27

3. In WP(Civil) 202/1995 [T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad vs. Union of India & Ors.], the Supreme Court had directed the Director General of Police, Assam and the concerned Superintendent of Police to ensure that no illegal mining and transportation of illegally mined materials took place in the Kaziranga National Park area and in the entire catchment area of rivers/streams and rivulets originating in Karbi Anglong Hill ranges and flowing into Kaziranga National Park, including Tiger Reserve, vide order dated 12.04.2019.

¶28

Page No.# 5/7

¶29

4. The petitioners’ counsel submits that the mined stones materials had been mined prior to the ban on mining related activities imposed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. As royalty had been paid for the same, the petitioners should be allowed to remove the stones from the area where it was stored.

¶30

5. Mr. J Chutia, learned Standing Counsel, KAAC, on the other hand, submits that in terms of the order dated 09.05.2002, passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad (50) vs. Union of India & Ors ., reported in (2013) 8 SCC 198 , where it has held in paragraph 1.4 that any individual having any grievance against any steps taken by the Government or any other authority in compliance with the orders passed by the Supreme Court, would be at liberty to move the Central Empowered Committee for seeking suitable relief. The Committee was to dispose of such applications in conformity with the orders passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court or refer it to the Supreme Court. He also submits that an affidavit has been filed by the KAAC on 05.11.2024 in the Supreme Court, where it has been stated that all mining activities inside Karbi Anglong district, bordering the Southern parts of Kaziranga National Park, has already been closed pursuant to the meeting of the Central Empowered Committee. Further, notice to close 33 stone quarries and 18 numbers of stone quarries as well as 18 stone crushing units has also been issued. It has also been stated in the affidavit that as per a letter dated 07.05.2025 issued by the Divisional Forest Officer of KAAC, no new order for lifting of the closure of the query has been issued. He submits that the above stand of the KAAC has been recorded in the order dated 20.11.2024 passed in WP(Civil) 202/1995 [T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad vs. Union of India & Ors.].

¶31

Page No.# 6/7

¶32

6. The learned counsel for the KAAC has also submitted a letter dated

¶33

30.05.2025 issued by the Central Empowered Committee, which is as follows:-

¶34

“9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has on 12.04.2019, inter alia, passed the following order:

¶35

a) all kind of mining and related activities along the aforesaid Kaziranga National Park area and in the entire catchment area of rivers/streams and rivulets originating in Karbi Anglong Hill ranges and flowing into Kaziranga National Park, including Tiger Reserve are restrained.

¶36

b) The Director General of Police, Assam and the concerned Superintendent of Police shall also ensure that no illegal mining takes place in the aforesaid area and no transportation of illegally mined material take place from Karbi Anglong Hills.”

¶37

7. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties.

¶38

8. On a perusal of the various orders passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the Central Empowered Committee, it is clear that no mining of any kind or its related activity can be done along the Kaziranga National Park area and in the entire catchment area of rivers/streams and rivulets originating in Karbi Anglong Hill ranges and flowing into Kaziranga National Park, including Tiger Reserve. As such, the prayer of the petitioners to allow them to transport the alleged mined stone minerals cannot be allowed by this Court. The petitioners would have to approach the concerned Central Empowered Committee with the above prayer for transportation of the stone minerals outside the Kaziranga National Park. This would be in consonance with para 1.4 of the order passed in

¶39

T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad (50) [supra] .

¶40

Page No.# 7/7

¶41

9. With regard to the prayer of the petitioners to allow them to take away their stone crusher units, this Court is of the view that the stone crusher unit is not a mineral and is only an equipment used for crushing the mined minerals. In that view of the matter, the prayer of the petitioners is allowed. Accordingly, the petitioners are allowed to take away their stone crusher units from Sarso Terang Gaon, Dolamara in the district of Karbi Anglong, without the stones.

¶42

10. The writ petitions are disposed of accordingly.

¶43

JUDGE

¶44

Comparing Assistant

M/S. Klirdap Stone Crusher v. the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S. Klirdap Stone Crusher 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

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S. G.R. Traders and Anr. Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Bodoland Security Services Vs Union of India and 4 Ors.

M/S. Rana Construction and Engineers Pvt. Ltd. Vs the Union of India and 3 Ors.

Banamali Sarkar Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

M/S. Sonu Enterprise Vs the Union of India and 4 Ors.

M/S. Japilangso Stone Crusher Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.