PALASHI NATH MAZUMDER Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. AY Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. P N Goswami, learned Additional Advocate General, Assam assisted by Mr. R Gogoi, learned standing counsel for the Forest Department.

(2.) The petitioner is the settlement holder/ lessee of Dhaleswari Sand Mining Contract Unit No. 01, 2 and Katakhal Sand Mining Contract Unit No. 04 under the Assam Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2013 (hereinafter referred as Rules 2013) and to that effect an agreement for mining contract under Rule 18 (3), 22 (1) of the Rules 2013 was executed by the petitioner and the Divisional Forest Officer, Hailakandi Division i.e. respondent no. 5. The said contract was on the basis of a sale notice dtd. 27/8/2013 issued under Rules 32 (1) and 33(1) of the Rules, 2013. During the subsistence of the contract and as per the terms of the agreement, the petitioner paid in advance 25th and 26th quarterly installments (kist) which commenced from 1st of April 2020 and 1st of June, 2022 respectively vide challans dtd. 20/4/2020 and 10/7/2020. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that due to the situation arising out of pandemic Covid-19, the respondent authority in compliance of the protocol of the Government stopped the operation of the said sand Mahal. It is also submitted that the lockdown was imposed while the extraction of minor minerals against the 24th kist money was in operation and as such though as per the term of the contract the kist money for the 25th and 26th kists were deposited in advance however, the mineral against the said kist value could not be extracted as there was no requisite order granted by the respondent authority due to the situation arising out of the Covid pandemic. As per the term of the settlement the contract period was over on 12/5/2021. Prior to the said expiry of the said contract, anticipating no further improvement in the situation, the petitioner submitted representations one after another to the respondents for extension of the time period for extraction of the minerals as against the kist value already deposited and to be deposited in future.

(3.) It is contended that without paying heed to the representation of the petitioner there was demand made by the respondents for payment of the installment/ kist money. In between, the petitioner moved this court thereby filing three writ petitions being WP(C) 268/2021, WP(C) 279/2021 and WP(C) 372/2021 which were disposed of on various dates by holding as follows: