Zawed Iqbal Barbhuiya Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

¶1

Page No. 1/5

¶2

GAHC010058112022

¶3

2026:GAU-AS:3701

¶4

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

¶5

Case No. : WP(C)/2396/2022

¶6

ZAWED IQBAL BARBHUIYA

¶7

(CONTRACTOR OF KATAKHAL SAND MINING CONTRACT UNIT NO. 02), S/O- RAJAB ALI BARBHUIYA, R/O- VILL. RATANPUR PT-II, P.O. RATANPUR, P.S. HAILAKANDI, DIST.- HAILAKANDI, PIN- 788151.

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 5 ORS REP. BY THE COMM. AND SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, DEPTT. OF FOREST AND ENVIRONMENT, DISPUR, GHY.-06.

¶10

2:THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FOREST ASSAM PANJABARI GUWAHATI.

¶11

3:THE CONSERVATOR OF FOREST SOUTH ASSAM CIRCLE SILCHAR CACHAR.

¶12

4:THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF HAILAKANDI

¶13

HAILAKANDI.

¶14

5:THE DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER HAILAKANDI DIVISION HAILAKANDI.

¶15

6:THE MANAGING DIRECTOR

¶16

ASSAM ELECTRONICS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. (AMTRON) INDUSTRIAL ESTATE BAMUNIMAIDAN

¶17

GUWAHATI- 781021

¶18

Page No. 2/5

¶19

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. U K NAIR, MISS B DAS,MR. T A CHOUDHURY,MR. A Y CHOUDHURY

¶20

Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, SC, FOREST

¶21

BEFORE

¶22

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MANISH CHOUDHURY

¶23

ORDER

¶24

Date : 13.03.2026

¶25

Heard Mr. T.A. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr. R.R. Gogoi, learned Standing Counsel, Finance Department for the respondent nos. 1, 2, 3, & 5; and Mr. S.R. Baruah, learned Junior Government Advocate, Assam for the respondent no. 4.

¶26

The learned counsel for the parties have referred to a Speaking Order dated 27.01.2022 passed by the respondent no. 2. The operative parts of the Speaking Order read as under :-

¶27

ORDER :

¶28

In the light of the above observations and findings and after careful examination of all the records and documents, it is found that the petitioner's prayer for relief of compensation/remission/refund of kists money i.e. from 13th to 17th kist caused due to pandemic from the original contract period cannot be considered. His further prayer to allow him to continue the Katakhal Sand Mining Contract Unit No. 2 by depositing the upcoming quarterly installment is unsustainable and cannot be considered as per the provisions contained in the AMMC Rules, 2013 and further amendment upto 2021. The contract stand terminated as per rule 38(6) of AMMC Rules, 2013 due to default in payment of aforesaid kists.

¶29

The matter stands disposed accordingly.

¶30

Page No. 3/5

¶31

Mr. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the Speaking Order is silent as regards the matter of refund of the security deposit.

¶32

Mr. Gogoi, learned Standing Counsel, Forest Department has submitted that with regard to the matter of security deposit, the provision for its forfeiture or refund is governed by sub-clause [vi] of sub-rule [7] of Rule 38 of the Assam Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2013.

¶33

Sub-rule [7] of the Rule 38 of the Assam Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2013 has provided as under :-

¶34

[7] Any default in payment of the due installments of dead rent, royalty, contract money, contribution to the fund beyond a period of seven days from the due date would entail : -

¶35

[i] Issue of a notice requiring the mineral concession holder to clear the default immediately and stating that in case the due amount is not paid within a period of thirty days of the due date, his mining operations would be suspended;

¶36

[ii] If the concession holder fails to deposit the due amount within a period of thirty days of the due date alongwith interest applicable thereon, the competent authority shall direct the concession holder to suspend his mining operations and stop any despatch of mineral from the concession area till such time the default is cleared;

¶37

[iii] The order of suspension issued under [ii] above shall, inter alia, include a showcause notice for termination of the lease or contract of permit alongwith forfeiture of security in the event of continuation of default for a period of thirty days from the date of order of suspension. The concession holder shall also be liable to pay the dues for such suspension period;

¶38

Page No. 4/5

¶39

[iv] The competent authority may revoke the suspension of mining operations in case the concession holder deposits atleast fifty percent of the due amount with an undertaking to pay the balance amount within a period of three months alongwith interest, concurrent with the installments payable during this period;

¶40

[v] The order of suspension of mining operations and the ban on despatch of mineral from the area would remain in force throughout such default period;

¶41

[vi] The competent authority may terminate the mineral concession, with or without forfeiture of the whole of the security deposit or part thereof, as deemed appropriate, in such cases without any further opportunity.

¶42

From the provision of sub-rule [7] of Rule 38 of the Assam Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2013, it transpires that the Competent Authority while terminating a mineral concession has to observe whether such termination is with or without forfeiture of the whole of the security deposit or part thereof, as deemed appropriate.

¶43

The Speaking Order dated 27.01.2025 is apparently found silent in the matter of forfeiture or refund of the security deposit, either in whole or in part.

¶44

In the above view of the matter, the respondent no. 2 is required to take a call as regards refund or forfeiture of the security deposit, either wholly or partially, pursuant to termination of the mineral concession, by taking into consideration the entire facts and circumstances.

¶45

Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent no. 2 to take into consideration the matter of refund or forfeiture of whole of the security deposit or part thereof, pursuant to the decision taken with regard to termination of the mineral concession by the Speaking Order dated 27.01.2022 and thereafter, to pass a reasoned order. To facilitate the such consideration, the petitioner is allowed to submit a Representation with regard to his prayer for refund of the security deposit the petitioner had deposited for the

¶46

Page No. 5/5

¶47

mineral concession granted to him in respect of Katakhal Sand Mining Contract Unit no. 2 within a period of two weeks from today. In the event the petitioner submits such Representation, the respondent no. 2 shall consider such Representation and thereafter, dispose of the same within a period one month from the date of receipt of such Representation along with a certified copy of this Order from the petitioner, in terms of subclause [vi] sub-rule [7] of Rule 38 of the Assam Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2013, as amended, and on its own merits.

¶48

This order disposes of the writ petition.

¶49

JUDGE

¶50

Comparing Assistant

Zawed Iqbal Barbhuiya v. the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Zawed Iqbal Barbhuiya 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

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Naren Bora Vs Barun Bhuyan and 13 Ors.

Abdul Salam Vs the Union of India and othrs

Shajahan Ali @ Sahajahan Ali Vs the Union of India and 9 Ors.

Binoy Bhuson Nath Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Hafiz Uddin Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Ucn Construction Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India and 6 Ors.