MONIDEEP BORGOHAIN Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The above mentioned two writ petitions have been preferred by the writ petitioner against the order dated 15th December 95 vide memo No. FRS. 187/90/79 passed by the Commissioner & Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, Forest Department, Dispur and also for extension of the Mahal period of the said stone quarry which was settled with the petitioner for a period of two years and extended from time to time. Writ petitioner filed Civil Rule No. 4573/95 for extension of the Bihubor Stone Quarry No. VII. As the same was not extended and proposed to settle with the respondent No. 5 Mahadev Kurmi by direct settlement without considering petition for extension of the said quarry he preferred the Civil Rule 5421/95. As both the Civil Rules have emerged regarding settlement/extension of the same stone quarry both the petitions are taken for disposal by this common judgement.

(2.) Taking the facts of the Civil Rule 4573/95 it is seen that the Bihubor Stone Quarry No. VII was settled with the petitioner for a period of two years with effect from 7.3.92 for extraction of 7000 cu. m. of stone during the period from 7.3.92 to 6.3.94 at a total sum of Rs. 2,80,000/-. Due to various factors beyond the control of the writ petitioner he could not operate the said mahal and he could only extract 5200 cu.m. of stone within this period. Therefore, the petitioner applied for extension of the mahal period. Accordingly first extension was given for one year on payment of the required amount. However the order of extension was not given in time as a result of which settlement of the stone quarry was extended for a period of one year from 11.11.94 to 10.11.95. The extension of period was granted on fulfilment of certain conditions such as the payment of 15% of the extension charge. Moreover the Govt. of Assam also allowed extension of 3500 cu.m. of stone within the extended period of settlement at new rate of royalty which was at the rate of 70% per cu.m. It is contended that in compliance of the direction petitioner paid 15% of additional extension fee and also balance amount along with 3/4th of the value for the addtional quota of 3500 cu.m. of stone at the rate of 70% per cum. fixed by the 'Government and the payment was made till 10.11.95. within this period, it is contended, the petitioner was entitled to extract not only the left over 1800 cu.m. of stone.

(3.) This time also because of unavoidable operational bottleneck the petitioner could extract: only 1500 cu.m. of stone from the additional quota of 3500 cu.m. although he already paid for 3/4th of the total quantity of 3500 cu.m. of stone which comes to 2625 cu.m., Balance of 1125 cu.m. of stone remained to be extracted for which the payment was already made by the petitioner. In this situation petitioner filed another application dated 13.7.95 for second extension of the settlement period of the aforesaid stone quarry for further two years against payment of 10% additional charge. Subsequently by another application dated 3.11.95 petitioner offered 25% of the existing revenue if the settlement of Bihubor Stone Quarry No. VII be extended for a period of two years. During this period petitioner came to know that the Govt. is negotiating with the respondent No. 5 to settle the said quarry with him by direct settlement. It is learnt that this respondent No. 5 is only offering 20% of the existing revenue for direct settlement of the said stone quarry which is less than the amount offered by the petitioner. In Civil Rule 4573/95 the basic contention of the petitioner was that in his application dated 7.11.95 he made an offer of 25% of the existing revenue of the Bihubor Stone Quarry for granting settlement in his favour for two years more. Petitioner also kept it open for negotiation with the respondents that if any person was ready to offer more than the petitioner's offer, he would be ready to further increase the offer. He also offered option that the settlement of the stone quarry in question be made by issuing a notice for tender in accordance with law and there must not be any private negotiation in making the settlement. As the respondent Government neither considered his prayer for extension for further period of two years with enhanced 25% revenue nor considered his offer for. direct settlement at the rate of 25% which was more than the 20% revenue offered by the respondent No. 5. As no response was given by the respondents the petitioner filed the subsequent writ petition being Civil Rule No. 5421/95 praying for a direction for direct settlement of the said quarry at the rate offered by the petitioner.