Gauhati High Court
WP(C)/2587/2026 of ANUP DAS Vs THE STATE OF ASSAM on 17 May 2026
GAHC010091612026 2026:GAU-AS:6814 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/2587/2026 ANUP DAS MINING CONTRACTOR, NKD-B-15 NICHUKA MCA, S/O- PRITHURAM DAS, VILLDUMURIA, P.O. BHOUKAMARI, DISTBAJALI, ASSAM, PIN-781325. VERSUS THE STATE
GAHC010091612026
2026:GAU-AS:6814
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/2587/2026
ANUP DAS
MINING CONTRACTOR, NKD-B-15 NICHUKA MCA, S/O- PRITHURAM DAS, VILLDUMURIA, P.O. BHOUKAMARI, DISTBAJALI, ASSAM, PIN-781325.
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM
REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER SECRETARY TO THE
GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, FOREST AND ENVIRONMENT DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI, ASSAM, PIN-781006.
2:THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FOREST AND HEAD OF
FOREST
PANJABARI
GUWAHATI
ASSAM
PIN- 781037
3:THE ASSTT CONSERVATOR OF FOREST
NORTH KAMRUP DIVISION
RANGIA
KAMRUP
ASSAM
PIN-781354.
4:THE DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER
NORTH KAMRUP DIVISION
RANGIA
KAMRUP
ASSAM
PIN- 781354.
5:THE RANGE FOREST OFFICER
BARPETA ROAD RANGE
BARPETA
ASSAM
PIN781315.
6:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER
BARPETA
ASSAM
PIN-781301
For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. M. Dutta, Sr. Advocate : Mr. H. M. Ali, Advocate For the Respondent(s) : Mr. R. R. Gogoi, SC, Forest : Mr. R. Talukdar, Government Advocate BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
Date : 18.05.2026
Heard Mr. M. Dutta, the learned Senior counsel assisted by Mr. H. M. Ali the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner and Mr. R. R. Gogoi, the learned Standing counsel appearing on behalf of the Forest Department. I have also heard Mr. R. Talukdar, the learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the Respondent No.6.
2. The case of the Petitioner herein is that the Petitioner was granted a settlement for a period of 7 (seven) years w.e.f.
10.05.2021 for annual quantity 75,000 cum of sand of the NKD- B-15 Nichuka Mining Mahal.
3. It is the case of the Petitioner that, on account of floods and a scheme being executed by the Water Resources Department, Government of Assam, for Jiobag fixation on the bank of the River Beki, the Petitioner has not been able to store the extracted sand from the mining mahal. The Petitioner sought for permission to be allotted an area beyond the mining area to store the sand. The Forest Department however refused to do so taking into account that the same would be contrary to Rule 38 of the Assam Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2013 (for short ‘the Rules of 2013’) . The records further reveal that on account of non-payment, steps are being taken by the Forest Department for termination of the contract.
4. Mr. M. Dutta, the learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner submitted that the Petitioner is not in a position to make the payment inasmuch as, if the Petitioner cannot store the extracted sand, the Petitioner would not be able to sell the sand. The learned Senior counsel further submitted that even assuming for argument sake, the Petitioner can make the payment but then also, taking into account that the payment has to be made through online mode, the installment payment option have been disabled and as such, the
Petitioner is not in a position to make the payment.
5. From a perusal of the facts and the submissions so made by the learned counsels for the Parties, it therefore appears that on one hand, it is the case of the Petitioner that on account of the circumstances beyond the control, the Petitioner is not in a position to put to use the extracted sand and on the other hand, on account of Rule 38 of the Rules of 2013, the Forest Department cannot enlarge the scope of the mining area.
6. Mr. M. Dutta, the learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner submitted that the Petitioner would be well advised to approach the competent Court of Civil Jurisdiction inasmuch as, the case involved is a case coming within the ambit of Section 56 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 and as such, the contract so entered into by and between the Petitioner as well as the Respondent Forest Department has to be deemed to be discharged by events beyond the control of the Petitioner. He therefore submitted that he may be permitted to withdraw the instant writ petition without prejudice to approach the competent Court of Civil Jurisdiction.
7. Taking into account the above, the instant writ petition stands closed on withdrawal.
8. The withdrawal of the instant writ petition shall not prejudice or preclude the Petitioner to avail remedies before the competent Court of Civil Jurisdiction, if so advised.
JUDGE Comparing Assistant