Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010134452023 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/3576/2023 GYAN SAGAR FOUNDATION A SOCIETY REGISTERED UNDER THE SOCIETIES REGISTRATION ACT XXI OF 1860 AND HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT THE CAMPUS OF ROYAL GLOBAL UNIVERSITY BETKUCHI OPP. BALAJI TEMPLE NH 37 P.O. AND PS.GARCHUK GUWAHATI KAMRUP METRO ASSAM 781035 AND REP. BY ITS PRESIDENT DR. A. K. PANSARI VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 6 ORS REP BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM FOREST AND ENVIRONMENT DEPTT. DISPUR GUWAHATI 6 2:THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FOREST AND HEAD OF FOREST FORCE ARANYA BHAWAN PANJABARI GUWAHATI PIN 781037 ASSAM 3:THE ADDITIONAL PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FOREST (PLANNING) ARANYA BHAWAN PANJABARI GUWAHATI PIN 781037 ASSAM 4:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT OF ASSA HOUSING AND URBAN AFFAIRS DEPTT. DISPUR GUWAHATI 781006 5:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM MINES AND MINERALS DEPTT. DISPUR GUWAHATI 781006 6:THE JOINT SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM MINES AND MINERALS DEPTT. DISPUR GUWAHATI 781006 Page No.# 2/3 7:THE COMMISSIONER GUWAHATI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION PANBAZAR GUWAHATI 78100 Advocate for the Petitioner : DR. ASHOK SARAF, MR P BARUAH,MR. N N DUTTA,MR S J SAIKIA Advocate for the Respondent : SC, GMC, SC, FOREST BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KARDAK ETE ORDER Date : 27-01-2025 Heard Mr. S.J. Saikia, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mrs. S. Baruah, learned counsel for the respondents No.5 and 6; Ms. H. Barua, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. P. Nayak, learned standing counsel for the respondents No. 4 & 7 and Ms. M. Kalita, learned standing counsel for the Forest Department. 2. Aggrieved by imposition of 2% of forest royalty by the municipal board, the Gauhati Municipal Board /Urban authorities has pre-conditioned for grant of building permission etc. in terms of communication dated 02.03.2023 issued by the Joint Secretary, Govt. of Assam, Mines and Minerals Department, the petitioner has filed this petition. 3. It is stated at the Bar that the aforesaid notification was also under challenge in the case of Amar Deka and another –vs- State of Assam and another in WP(C) 4085/2024, which has been disposed of with the following directions:- “19. In view of the above analysis, it is therefore the opinion of this Court that the impugned communication dated 02.03.2023 issued by the Joint Secretary to the Government of Assam, Mines and Mineral Department thereby stipulating that the amendments carried out by the Amending Rules would also apply to the private agencies is contrary to the Act of 1957 as well as the Rules of 2013 as amended by the Amending Rules. Accordingly, the impugned communication dated 02.03.2023 is set aside and quashed. 20. This Court further observes and declares that the Urban Local Bodies cannot impose royalty upon the private person/entity in respect to private constructions carried out and consequently cannot also insist on payment of royalty as a condition for issuance of permission to construct and to carry out construction on the basis of the permission so granted. Page No.# 3/3 21. This Court, therefore, issues a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the GMC/GMDA not to insist upon payment of royalty upon the petitioner as a condition for granting permission to construct or carrying out construction pursuant to the permission so granted.” 4. The learned counsel for the parties have submitted that the present case is covered by the case of Amar Deka (supra). 5. Having considered the submission and also on perusal of the direction passed in Amar Deka (supra), I am of the view that the present petition is covered by the case of Amar Deka (supra). 6. Accordingly, the determination made in the case of Amar Deka (supra) shall be applicable in the present case also. 7. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of in terms of paragraph 19, 20 and 21 of the case of Amar Deka (supra). JUDGE Comparing Assistant