Gauhati High Court
Palashi Nath Mazumder vs The State Of Assam And 5 Ors on 17 February, 2021
Author: Prasanta Kumar Deka
Bench: Prasanta Kumar Deka
Page No.# 1/3
GAHC010006362021
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/372/2021
PALASHI NATH MAZUMDER
CONTRACTOR OF DHALESWARI SAND MINING CONTRACT UNIT NO. 01.
W/O DEBDAS NATH MAZUMDER, RESIDENT OF WARD NO. 03, SP ROAD,
PO AND PS LALA, DIST HAILAKANDI, ASSAM 788163
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 5 ORS
REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT.
OF ASSAM, DEPARTMENT OF FOREST AND ENVIRONMENT DISPUR
GUWAHATI 06
2:THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FOREST
ASSAM
PANJABARI
GUWAHATI
3:THE CONSERVATOR OF FOREST SOUTH ASSAM CIRCLE
SILCHAR
CACHAR
4:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF HAILAKANDI
HAILAKANDI
ASSAM
5:THE DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER
HAILAKANDI DIVISION
HAILAKANDI
6:THE MANAGING DIRECTOR
Page No.# 2/3
ASSAM ELECTRONICS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED
(AMTRON) INDUSTRIAL ESTATE
BAMUNIMAIDAM
GUWAHATI 78102
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A Y CHOUDHURY
Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRASANTA KUMAR DEKA
ORDER
17.02.2021.
Heard Mr. T. A. Choudhury, the learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. P. N. Goswami, the learned Standing Counsel for the Forest Department, Assam representing the respondent Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 5.
The petitioner is the lessee of Dhaleswari sand mining contract Unit No. 01 vide an agreement dated 13.05.2014. As per the terms of the agreement the petitioner deposited 25th and 26th quarterly installment of kist commencing from 1 st April 2019 and 1st June 2019 but the respondent authority stopped the operation of Mohal due to COVID-19 protocol. Due to the said pandemic COVID-19, the petitioner could not operate the sand Mohal till today.
The petitioner also failed to pay the subsequent kist money of 28 th kist. As there was difficulty in depositing the kist amount due to the observance of COVID-19 protocol, the petitioner vide representation dated 30.11.2020 sought for granting all necessary permits and orders accepting the petitioner kist money w.e.f. 1 st week of December, 2020 and pending kist of pandemic period w.e.f. 1 st April 2020 to 30 November, 2020 be extended at the end of the settlement period. The petitioner filed this writ petition seeking for an appropriate direction to the respondents.
Page No.# 3/3 Similar Writ Petition i.e. WP(C)/5495/2020 in the case of Dipti Rani Roy -Vs- The State of Assam and Ors. was disposed of vide order dated 06.01.2021 as follows:-
"5. Considering the matter in its entirety, we require the petitioner to deposit all the up- to-date kist money that they are required to deposit and also direct the Forest Department to take up the matter in an appropriate manner with the respondent AMTRON and ensure that whenever the petitioner attempts to make the online deposit of the kist money, the same will be duly received. The AMTRON should also appropriately co-operate in the matter and should not put up the system in such a state that the deposits are not accepted.
6. As regards the claim of extension of the petitioner, the petitioner may submit appropriate representation before the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest (PCCF), Assam and upon such representation being submitted, the PCCF shall pass a reasoned order thereon within a period of three months from the date of receipt of such representation. Upon the deposits being made and accepted, it is reiterated that no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioner".
In view of the factual matrix in the present writ petition, this writ petition stands disposed of in similar line thereby directing the petitioner to submit appropriate representation before the Divisional Forest Officer, Hailakandi Division, Hailakandi and upon such representation being submitted, the Divisional Forest Officer, Hailakandi Division, Hailakandi shall pass a reasoned order thereon within a period of three months from the date of receipt of such representation. Upon the deposits being made and accepted, it is reiterated that no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioner.
Accordingly, this writ petition stands disposed of.
JUDGE Comparing Assistant