Page No.# 1/7 GAHC010242632024 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/6177/2024 RAJIB SARMAH S/O- LATE BONGSHIDHAR SARMAH, R/O- KAMALABORIA, P.O. PHUKANARHAT, PS PANIGAON, DIST. LAKHIMPUR, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS DEPARTMENT, ASSAM SECRETARIAT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-6. 2:THE STATE ENVIRONMENT IMPACT ASSESSMENT AUTHORITY ASSAM BAMUNIMAIDAM GHY-21 REPRESENTED BY THE MEMBER SECRETARY. 3:THE DIRECTOR OF GEOLOGY AND MINING GOVT. OF ASSAM R.G. BARUAH ROAD GUWAHATI. 4:THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS AND HEAD OF FORESTS FORCE ASSAM ARANYA BHAWAN PANJABARI GUWAHATI-37. 5:THE DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER LAKHIMPUR DIVISION NORTH LAKHIMPUR Page No.# 2/7 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. J SARMAH, Advocate for the Respondent : SC, FOREST, GA, ASSAM,MR. K GOGOI BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KAUSHIK GOSWAMI ORDER Date : 15.05.2026 Heard Mr. J. Sarmah, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. R. R. Gogoi, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Forest Department. 2. By way of the present writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has assailed the rejection order dated 18.10.2024 issued by the State Environment Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA), Assam, whereby the petitioner’s request relating to renewal of environmental clearance for operation of the Kakoi Sand, Gravel and Earth Mining Contract Area came to be rejected. The petitioner has further prayed for a direction upon the respondent authorities to reconsider the proposal for renewal of environmental clearance for operation of the said mining contract area for the remaining contractual period and/or for refund of the kist money deposited with the office of the Divisional Forest Officer for the period during which the petitioner was allegedly prevented from operating the mining contract area for want of environmental clearance. 3. The brief facts, as pleaded, are that pursuant to a tender process, the petitioner participated in the bid process for settlement of the Kakoi Sand, Gravel and Earth Mining Contract Area and, having Page No.# 3/7 emerged as the highest bidder, was issued a Letter of Intent dated 25.01.2018 for settlement of the said mining contract area for a period of seven years. 4. It is the case of the petitioner that environmental clearance for operation of the mining contract area had earlier been granted for a period of five years, valid up to 24.04.2024, based on the geo- coordinates declared by the Divisional Forest Officer. According to the petitioner, while he continued to operate the mining contract area and regularly deposit the kist money in terms of the contractual arrangement, the environmental clearance expired upon completion of its validity period. 5. The petitioner contends that though the Divisional Forest Officer had initially taken steps for renewal of the environmental clearance by addressing the competent authority, the position was subsequently altered and the proposal was sought to be processed with modified geo-coordinates. Consequent thereto, the petitioner was required to prepare and submit a revised mining plan based on the modified GPS coordinates. According to the petitioner, despite compliance with such requirements, the request for renewal of environmental clearance came to be rejected by order dated 18.10.2024. It is in the aforesaid circumstances that the present writ petition has been instituted. 6. Mr. J. Sarmah, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that during the pendency of the present writ petition, the requisite environmental clearance has since been granted. He, however, submits that the delayed grant of such clearance effectively deprived the petitioner of the ability to operate the mining contract Page No.# 4/7 area for a substantial period, thereby causing serious financial prejudice. 7. Learned counsel further submits that in view of the said circumstances, the petitioner had submitted a representation dated 19.11.2024 before the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests & Head of Forest Force, Assam, seeking renewal/extension of the mining contract for the remaining unutilised period. It is submitted that despite lapse of considerable time, the said representation remains pending consideration. 8. It is accordingly contended that although the immediate issue regarding grant of environmental clearance has since been addressed, the petitioner’s surviving grievance pertains to the consequential prejudice suffered due to the delay and the pending claim for appropriate administrative redress. 9. Per contra, Mr. R. R. Gogoi, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Forest Department, fairly submits that since the environmental clearance, which formed the central subject matter of challenge in the present proceedings, has already been granted during the pendency of the writ petition, the principal cause for adjudication no longer survives. He, however, submits that inasmuch as the petitioner’s representation dated 19.11.2024 remains pending before the competent authority, appropriate directions may be issued for consideration of the same in accordance with law. 10. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the materials available on record, this Court finds that the Page No.# 5/7 principal grievance raised in the writ petition originally related to rejection of the petitioner’s request concerning environmental clearance, which allegedly prevented continuation of mining operations under the subsisting contractual arrangement. 11. It is not in dispute that during the pendency of the present proceedings, the requisite environmental clearance has already been granted. In view thereof, the primary challenge relating to non-grant of environmental clearance does not survive for substantive adjudication in the present writ proceedings, the foundational grievance in that regard having been rendered academic. 12. However, the petitioner’s grievance, as it presently survives, is not entirely extinguished merely by reason of subsequent grant of environmental clearance. The petitioner asserts that due to the delay in grant of such clearance, he was unable to operate the mining contract area for a substantial duration, resulting in financial and contractual prejudice. In support of such grievance, the petitioner has admittedly submitted a representation before the competent authority seeking appropriate relief by way of renewal/extension for the period allegedly lost. 13. It is equally not in dispute that the aforesaid representation remains pending and no decision has yet been communicated thereon. 14. This Court is of the considered view that adjudication upon the petitioner’s substantive claim for renewal, extension, or any other consequential benefit would necessarily involve examination of factual aspects, contractual conditions, applicable statutory provisions, and Page No.# 6/7 administrative considerations, all of which are matters appropriately falling within the jurisdiction of the competent authority in the first instance. 15. The scope of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution does not ordinarily warrant substitution of the Court’s decision for that of the statutory or administrative authority on matters requiring primary consideration by such authority, particularly where the authority has yet to discharge its decision-making function. 16. At the same time, where a representation raising a substantive grievance remains pending without consideration, and the grievance cannot be said to be wholly untenable on the face of the record, this Court would be justified in ensuring that the competent authority takes a considered decision in accordance with law within a reasonable timeframe. 17. In the facts of the present case, this Court is of the view that the ends of justice would be adequately served by directing consideration of the petitioner’s pending representation, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the petitioner’s entitlement to renewal, extension, refund, compensation, or any other consequential relief. 18. Accordingly, the present writ petition stands disposed of by directing respondent No. 4, namely, the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests & Head of Forest Force, Assam, to consider and dispose of the petitioner’s representation dated 19.11.2024 (Annexure-1 to the additional affidavit filed by the petitioner on 24.09.2025), strictly in accordance with law, by passing a reasoned and speaking order, within Page No.# 7/7 a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. 19. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the petitioner’s claim, and all issues in that regard are left open for consideration by the competent authority. 20. No order as to costs. 21. With the above observations and directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant