Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 418 (GAU)

Habibur Rahman S/o Sorhab Ali v. State of Assam

2022-04-25

ACHINTYA MALLA BUJOR BARUA, N.KOTISWAR SINGH

body2022
JUDGMENT : ACHINTYA MALLA BUJOR BARUA, J. 1. Heard Mr. R.P. Sharma, learned senior counsel assisted by Ms. T. Som, learned counsel for the review petitioners. Also heard Mr. P.N. Goswami, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondents in Environment and Forest Department, Govt. of Assam. 2. Considering the nature of the grounds raised in the review petition, we are of the view that respondent No. 6 is not required to be heard for the purpose of the present review petition inasmuch as this review petition is not instituted in respect of any of the conclusions that may have been arrived at in the order under review which were decided in favour of the aforesaid respondent No. 6. In any view of the matter, a learned counsel had entered appearance on behalf of the respondent No. 6 and but in spite of it, he is not in the Court today. 3. W.P. (C) No. 4383/2016 was instituted by the present review petitioners assailing the letter dated 15.07.2016 of the Addl. Principal Chief Conservator of Forests (P) of the respondent Department by which there was a direction to the authorities under the Environment and Forest Department to make the settlement of the mining contract areas on the basis of the highest bidder in the re-sale process pursuant to a re-sale notice dated 23.03.2014. 4. The core contention raised before the learned Single Judge was that although under Rule 34(1) of the Assam Minor Mineral Concessions Rules, 2013, there was a mandate of a requirement of a sale notice of 21days to be issued but there was no such requirement under Rule 34(2) of the said Rules that the paper publication of the notice was also had a requirement of 21 days. 5. By the judgment and order dated 31.03.2017 of the learned Single Judge in W.P. (C) No. 4383/2016, a conclusion was arrived at that Rule 34(2) of the Rules of 2013 was a requirement in addition to the publication of the notice under Rule 34(1) and therefore, a gist of the notice to be published in a daily newspaper having a good circulation was sufficient and therefore, the requirement of 21 days of a notice under paper publication was not a stipulation of the said Rules. 6. On an appeal being carried forward by Sri. 6. On an appeal being carried forward by Sri. Ratul Das in W.A. No. 129/2017 and by the authorities in Environment and Forest Department of the Government of Assam in W.A. No. 213/2017, both the writ appeals were given a final consideration by the judgment and order dated 27.08.2018. By the said judgment dated 27.08.2018 in the Para No. 16 thereof, an interpretation was given to Rule 34(2) of the Rules of 2013 to the effect that the expression ‘such notice’ appearing in Rule 34(2) would also have to mean a public notice of 21 days. Accordingly, in Para No. 17, an interpretation was given that the requirement of 21 days in publication of the sale notice in one daily newspaper having a good circulation is also a requirement of Rule 34(2). 7. Against the said judgment and order, an appeal was carried before the Hon’ble Supreme Court which was registered as Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 24097-24098/2018. By the order dated 06.09.2018, the Hon’ble Supreme Court dismissed the Special Leave Petitions by observing as under: “The special leave petitions are dismissed.” 8. After the dismissal of the Special Leave Appeal by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the petitioners have instituted this review petition by referring to judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in Khoday Distilleries Ltd. vs. Sri. Mahadeshwara Sahakara, (2019) 4 SCC 376 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court had provided that in certain circumstances a review would also be maintainable even after the dismissal of an appeal by the Supreme Court. On the said context, this review petition was admitted for hearing. 9. In the review, the petitioners have urged upon only one ground that prior to the letter dated 15.07.2016 which was assailed in W.P. (C) No. 4383/2016, the petitioners have deposited the necessary amount with the authorities in the Environment and Forest Department for availing the settlement and such deposits were made in the year 2014 itself and the said fact could not be brought on record even after exercise of due diligence. 10. Accordingly, Mr. 10. Accordingly, Mr. R.P. Sharma, learned senior counsel for the review petitioners has raised a contention that the authorities in the Environment and Forest Department having accepted the amount from the petitioners, a right of legitimate expectation flows in their favour and in spite of the subsequent decision of the Writ Appellate Court in interpreting Rule 34(2) of the Rules of 2013, a legal right of the petitioners still subsists and the respondents are required to give a due consideration to the said aspect that the money was accepted by them in the year 2014 itself. 11. Mr. P.N. Goswami, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondents in the Environment and Forest Department has raised a contention that the said money was accepted pursuant to the same transaction process which ultimately led to their letter dated 15.07.2016 and the Writ Appellate Court having rendered its judgment against the procedure that was adopted by the respondent authorities, therefore, from such point of view, even if, the money was accepted in the year 2014 itself, the same cannot lead to a legal right in favour of the petitioners to avail the benefit of a settlement pursuant to such transaction. 12. We have noticed that the factual aspect that the money was accepted by the authorities in the Environment and Forest Department in the year 2014 itself was neither brought to the notice of the learned Single Judge not before the Writ Appellate Court while rendering judgment dated 27.08.2018 nor it was brought to the notice before the Hon’ble Supreme Court while deciding the appeal against the judgment by a Writ Appellate Court. As the said factual aspect was not brought to the notice of the Courts in either of the proceedings, we are of the view that it can also be construed that the review petitioners failed to bring on record certain facts even upon exercise of due diligence. We are not expressing any view that the fact of having deposited the amount in the year 2014 is a relevant fact for a decision. But as to what would happen to the said deposited amount require a decision by the respondent-authorities. 13. We are not expressing any view that the fact of having deposited the amount in the year 2014 is a relevant fact for a decision. But as to what would happen to the said deposited amount require a decision by the respondent-authorities. 13. From such point of view, we give the liberty to the review petitioners to make a representation before the authorities in the Environment and Forest Department raising such claim and once the representation is submitted, it will be for the authorities in the Environment and Forest Department to pass a reasoned order on the same. We are clarifying that we are neither expressing any view on the merit of the claim that the petitioners have a legal right to a settlement on the basis of the money that was deposited in the year 2014 nor we are expressing any other view on such claim of a legal right. It will be open for the authorities to pass any reasoned order as may be permissible under the law. In passing the reasoned order, the authorities to act as per the findings on the question of law in judgment and order dated 27.08.2018 in the W.A. No. 129/2017 and WA No. 213/2017 as regards the interpretation of Rule 34(2) of the Rules of 2013. 14. We further provide that the interpretation of Rule 34(2) of the 2013 Rules as had been rendered by the Writ Appellate Court by impugned order dated 27.08.2018 is being upheld and nor any contention has been raised by the review petitioners against such interpretation of the law that was already arrived at. 15. Mr. P.N. Goswami, learned Additional Advocate General states that in the meantime, a letter of intent had been issued to some other settlement holders in respect of mines in question. 16. If that is so, while entertaining the representation of the review petitioners, hearing be also given to the prospective settlement holders in whose favour the letter of intent had been issued. 17. Review Petition is disposed of in above terms.