Page No.# 1/6 GAHC010210482019 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/6603/2019 SLT INFRACON PVT. LTD. A COMPANY DULY REGD UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956 HAVING ITS REGD OFFICE AT VILL UTTAR BADARPUR, P.O- BADARPURGHAT, DIST- HAILAKANDI, ASSAM AND IS REP. BY ITS DIRECTOR AND POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, SRI ASHISH TUSNIAL VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 7 ORS REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT OF ASSAM, FOREST DEPTT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI 2:THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVT OF ASSAM MINES AND MINERALS DEPTT DISPUR GUWAHATI- 781006 ASSAM 3:THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FOREST ARANYA BHAWAN PANJABARI GUWAHATI ASSAM PIN- 781037 4:THE CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FOREST SOUTH ASSAM CIRCLE SILCHAR- 788001 CACHAR ASSAM Page No.# 2/6 5:THE DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER KARIMGANJ DIVISION KARIMGANJ ASSAM 6:THE RANGE FOREST OFFICER KALAIN KARIMGANJ ASSAM 7:THE BEAT FOREST OFFICER SEALTEK BEAT KARIMGANJ ASSAM 8:THE DIRECTORATE OF GEOLOGY AND MINING ASSAM REP. BY ITS DIRECTOR KAHILIPARA GUWAHATI- 781019 ASSA Advocate for the Petitioner : MR G N SAHEWALLA, MD. ASLAM,MR. A CHETIA,MS. S. TODI Advocate for the Respondent : MR. S BISWAS (R-1,3,4,5,6 & 7), MR. D GOGOI, SC, FOREST DEPTT.,MR. A N SARMA (R-2) BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOUMITRA SAIKIA ORDER 11.02.2025 Heard Mr. G.N. Sahewalla, learned Sr. counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. D. Gogoi, learned Standing Counsel, Forest Department. The petitioner is a private limited company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and having its registered office at Village Uttar Badarpur, P.O. Badarpurghat in the district of Hailakandi, Assam. The petitioner company amongst other is engaged in the execution of various works contract and has Page No.# 3/6 also successfully executed such construction works. It is submitted that one of the major components for the construction works are aggregates and for facilitating its constant availability, manufacturing and production of such aggregates, the petitioner company had set up a stone crusher unit at Mohanpur Part-I, Katirial, Cachar, wherefrom the major quantity of the aggregates produced are self consumed in the developmental construction works of public interest and in the event of there being any balance, the same are sold to other contractors. It is submitted that for production of aggregates, the raw material utilized by the petitioner is either river boulders, limestone, granite, basalt etc. It is submitted that for setting up of the crusher unit, appropriate licence is to be obtained from the concerned Forest Department. The petitioner after obtaining the requisite licence to set up the crusher unit, the petitioner accordingly established its crusher unit in the year 2005. It is submitted that prior to the year 2013, both Minor Mineral and Forest Product were under the jurisdiction of the forest department. In the year 2013, the Assam Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2013 was formulated whereby the Director of Geology and Mining Assam was designated as the competent authority in respect of minor mineral listed in Schedule ‘X’ to the Act while the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest and Head of Forest Force, Assam was designated as the competent authority in respect to minor minerals listed in Schedule ‘Y’ to the Act. In so far as permission for stone crusher unit, which was permitted crushing of any type of stone, i.e., minor minerals classified either as Schedule ‘X’ or ‘Y’, continued to be issued by the Forest Department and the crushing of limestone, which is a Minor Mineral classified as Schedule ‘X’, the petitioner was accorded permission by the Forest Department. Page No.# 4/6 The respondent No. 5 issued a letter dated 09.10.2018 addressed to the Range Officers, Kalsin, Sadar, Patherkandi and Duhalia Ranges whereby the concerned Range Officers were directed that since limestone is not of enlisted in Schedule ‘Y’, minerals of the crusher units including that of the petitioner should be asked to maintain a separate register for their legal procurements, conversion and dispatch of limestone. Subsequent thereto, the respondent No. 5 again vide letter dated 11.01.2019 directed the Range Forest Officers not to allow use of limestone in stone crusher units as the limestone is not enlisted in Schedule ‘Y’. On 10.03.2019, the petitioner dispatched a truckload of aggregate produce from limestone through a vehicle bearing registration No. AS 24C 2466 to Sairang, Mizoram. While the vehicle was in transit, the respondent No. 7 seized the said vehicle alongwith the limestone on 13.03.2019. Being aggrieved the present writ petition has been filed. It is submitted that the State Government by Notification dated 29.01.2003 issued certain guidelines for installations of stone crusher units. It is under these guidelines that subsequent directions and orders were issued by the Officers of the Forest Department including the communications dated 09.10.2018 and 11.01.2019. The guidelines amongst others came to be challenged before this Court in writ petition being WP(C) No.6544/2022 by a similarly situated person and this writ petition came to be dismissed by Judgment And Order dated 21.06.2024 and pursuant to which the matter travelled to the Appellate Court. The Appellate Court by Judgment And Order dated 18.12.2024 passed in Writ Appeal No.304/2024 upon due consideration of all the provisions of law set aside the Notification dated 29.01.2003 and the subsequent order dated 26.08.2022 passed by the Divisional Forest Officer, Dibrugarh, ordering closure Page No.# 5/6 of the said appellant’s Stone Crusher unit. Resultantly the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge also came to be set aside and the writ petition filed by the appellant was allowed. It is therefore, submitted before this Court that the issues involved in the writ petition are akin to the issues which were decided by Division Bench of this Court in W.A. No. 304/2024 by Judgment and Order dated 18.12.2024. Upon perusal of the Judgment and Order dated 18.12.2024, it is seen that the issues raised in the present writ petition stands squarely covered by the Judgment and order dated 18.12.2024 passed in W.A. No. 304/2024. The relevant portion of the Judgment and Order are quoted herein below: “In view of the above discussion, the impugned notification dated 29.01.2003 is set aside and the order dated 26.08.2022, passed by the Divisional Forest Officer, Dibrugarh, ordering closure of the appellant’s Stone Crusher unit, namely, M/s Arkay Stone Mills with immediate effect, is also set aside. Resultantly, the impugned judgment and order dated 21.06.2024, passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No. 6544/2022 is also set aside and the writ petition filed by the appellant before the writ court is allowed.” As such, this Court is of the considered view that the issues in the writ petition too will be covered by the Judgment and Order dated 18.12.2024 passed in W.A. No. 304/2024. In view of the Judgment and Order dated 18.12.2024 passed in Writ Appeal No.304/2024 since the very notification issuing guidelines by the Forest Department has been set aside, all consequential orders passed by the respondents in pursuance to the said guidelines dated 29.01.2003 are also set aside in so far as the present writ petition is concerned. Consequently, Page No.# 6/6 the seizure of the vehicle of the petitioner along with limestone has to be held to have been done without the proper authority in law by the Forest Department. As such, the vehicle bearing the registration No.AS- 24C-2466 if still in the custody should be released along with limestone which was also seized by the Forest Department. In terms of the above, the writ petition stands allowed. JUDGE Comparing Assistant