BIREN GOGOI Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. A.K. Goswami, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the petititioner and Mr. P.G. Baruah, learned Senior Advocate and the learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents.

(2.) The matter relates to settlement of Dilly Stone Quarry J.P. No. 2, herein referred to as "the quarry". Pursuant to a Sale Notice, the said quarry was settled in favour of the writ petitioner Shri Biren Gogoi for a period of two years. As there was some delay in delivering the possession of the quarry, the period of settlement was refixed from 4.6.2003 to 3.6.2005. The case of the petitioner is that due to some communal violence which erupted in the area, he could not operate the Mahal and extract the required quantity of stone and accordingly the petitioner submitted a representation for extension which is permissible under the Assam Sale of Forest Produces, Coups and Mahal Rules, 1977, as amended in the year 2000, hereinafter callled as 'the Rules'. After making necessary enquiry, Respondent No. 4 granted extension for a period of 90 days in favour of the petitioner and admittedly, the said period of extension also expired in the meantime.

(3.) The sole grievance of the petitioner in this writ petition is that he had filed a representation before the State Government for extension of the period of settlement for one year and the State Government had called for a report and thereafter vide impugned order dated 18.7.2005 (Annexure-1), the said representation for extension was rejected on the: ground that extension of 90 days had already been granted to the writ petitioner by the Principal Chief Conservator of Assam. The impugned order has been challenged on the ground that the application has been rejected without application of mind and the grant of extension of 90 days time by the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest is not a bar for the State Government to grant extension under the Rules and as the said application has not been considered and rejected on merit, the petitioner has prayed for setting aside the impugned order dated 18.7.2005 and for a direction to the respondent authority to reconsider the prayer of the petitioner and till then not to proceed with the settlement of the quarry pursuant to the fresh sale notice it has also been stated that the petitioner has been discriminated in the matter as the State Government vide order dated 16.7.2005 (Annexure-N) granted extension of seven months to another settlement holder in respect of a quarry, Dilli Stone quarry No. JP/4 which is situated adjacent to the quarry of the petitioner.