Tasso Alloys Private Limited and Anr. Vs the Union of India

¶1

Page No.# 1/5

¶2

GAHC010097502026

¶3

undefined

¶4

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

¶5

Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/1646/2026 in WA 90/2025

¶6

TASSO ALLOYS PRIVATE LIMITED AND ANR 347 SANTOSH ROY ROAD BARISHA SAKHERBAZAR JAMES LONG SARANI KOLKATA -700008. THROUGH ITS AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE MR. AJAHAR UDDIN AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS SON OF ABDUL MANNAN RESIDENT OF RUPAHI TOWN SAMAGURI DISTRICT NAGAON ASSAM - 782125.

¶7

2: MR AJAHAR UDDIN

¶8

AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF APPLICANT NO. 1 AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS SON OF ABDUL MANNAN RESIDENT OF RUPAHI TOWN SAMAGURI DISTRICT NAGAON ASSAM - 782125. VERSUS

¶9

THE UNION OF INDIA THROUGH THE SECRETARY MINISTRY OF MINES GOVERNMENT OF INDIA SHASTRI BHAWAN

¶10

Page No.# 2/5

¶11

NEW DELHI - 110001.

¶12

2:INDIAN BUREAU OF MINES

¶13

THROUGH THE CONTROLLER GENERAL 2ND FLOOR INDIRA BHAWAN CIVIL LINES NAGPUR MAHARASHTRA 440001

¶14

3:REGIONAL CONTROLLER OF MINES

¶15

BHUBANESWAR GUWAHATI REGIONAL OFFICE HOUSE NO. 216 3RD FLOOR ABOVE IDBI BANK CHANDMARI POST-BAMUNIMAIDAN DISTKAMRUPM GUWAHATI ASSAM781021.

¶16

4:THE STATE OF ARUNACHAL PRADESH

¶17

THROUGH THE DIRECTOR OF MINES DEPARTMENT OF GEOLOGY AND MINING GOVERNMENT OF ARUNACHAL PRADESH R K MISSION COMPOUND ITANAGAR -791111 ARUNACHAL PRADESH.

¶18

5:MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT

¶19

FOREST AND CLIMATE CHANGE THROUGH SECRETARY INDIRA PARYAVARAN BHAWAN JORBAGH ROAD NEW DELHI110 003-110 003. PROPOSED RESPONDENT 6:THE STATE LEVEL ENVIRONMENT IMPACT ASSESSMENT AUTHORITY (SEIAA) ARUNCHAL PRADESH THROUGH THE CHAIRMAN DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS OFFICE OF THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS PCCF OFFICE COMPLEX ITANAGAR P. SECTOR ARUNACHAL PRADESH PIN-791111. PROPOSED RESPONDENT ------------

¶20

Page No.# 3/5

¶21

Advocate for : MR R SENSUA Advocate for : DY.S.G.I. appearing for THE UNION OF INDIA

¶22

BEFORE

¶23

HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. ASHUTOSH KUMAR HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY

¶24

ORDER

¶25

09-06-2026

¶26

(Arun Dev Choudhury,J)

¶27

Heard Mr.P. Goswami, learned Senior counsel assisted by Mr. R. Sensua, learned counsel, for the applicants and Mr. U. Goswami, learned Dy. Solicitor General of India (Dy.SGI) for the opposite parties/respondents.

¶28

The present application has been filed by the applicants/appellants, seeking impleadment of the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEF&CC, in short ), through its Secretary as the respondent/opposite party No. 5 as well as the State Environment Impact Assessment Authority, (SEIAA, in short ) Arunachal Pradesh through its Member Secretary as the respondent/opposite party No. 6 in the connected WA No. 90/2025 and permission to carry out consequential amendments in the memo of parties.

¶29

The background facts of the present litigation are in a narrow compass.

¶30

The Mining Plan for the Dodeserum Graphite Deposit of the applicant No.1 was revoked on 07.01.2022, which was challenged in WP(C) No. 1857/2022. During the pendency of the said writ petition, the learned Single Judge of this Court had stayed the operation of the revocation

¶31

Page No.# 4/5

¶32

order. Thereafter, SEIAA issued the Terms of Reference on 14.07.2022 for a detailed EIA study in respect of the project.

¶33

By the Judgment and Order dated 17.02.2025, the order of revocation however was upheld.

¶34

The applicants/appellants challenged the aforesaid judgment and order in the connected appeal and on 21.03.2025, the Co-ordinate Bench directed that no third-party rights shall be created by the State of Arunachal Pradesh in respect of the subject mineral blocks pending the appeal.

¶35

The Terms of Reference dated 14.07.2022, will expire on 14.07.2026.

¶36

Contending that since the MoEF&CC is the statutory authority charged with appraisal and grant of Environmental Clearance for the project under the EIA Notification, 2006, it is now necessary to implead the MoEF&CC and the SEIAA as the respondent/opposite party Nos. 5 & 6 respectively, in the connected appeal.

¶37

Mr. U. Goswami, learned Dy. SGI and Mr. A. Chandran, learned Senior Government Advocate, Arunachal Pradesh have not objected to the prayer of the applicants/appellants and they submit that both of them shall represent the newly impleaded respondent/opposite party Nos. 5 & 6 respectively.

¶38

Having gone through the pleadings as well as the materials available on record and taking note of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that aforenoted entities, are required to be impleaded as the respondent/opposite party Nos. 5 & 6 in the connected appeal for its proper adjudication.

¶39

Page No.# 5/5

¶40

The applicants shall furnish a fresh memo of parties before the Registry. Accordingly, Registry shall do the needful.

¶41

With the aforesaid, this Interlocutory Application stands disposed off.

¶42

JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE

¶43

Comparing Assistant

Tasso Alloys Private Limited and Anr. v. the Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tasso Alloys Private Limited and Anr. v. the Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ranjan Sovasaria Vs Sushil Agarwal and 4 Ors.

Dr Ramen Talukdar Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Minu Begum Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

The State of Assam and 2 Ors. Vs Dr Biswajit Sarma and Anr.

Tasso Alloys Private Limited and Anr. Vs the Union of India

Aineswari Patir Vs the State of Assam and 8 Ors.