Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010212802021 2025:GAU-AS:14560 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/6716/2021 HAFIZUR RAHMAN AND ANR S/O. JAHUR ALI, VILL. TUSHPARA, P.S. BILASIPARA, P.O. GHASBARI, BILASIPARA, PIN-783348, DIST. DHUBRI, ASSAM. 2: HERAMBA BRAHMA S/O. LT. TAPAN BRAHMA VILL. KHAGRABARI P.O. BONORGAON P.S. DOTMA PIN-783347 DIST. KOKRAJHAR BTAD ASSAM VERSUS BODOLAND TERRITORIAL COUNCIL AND 4 ORS REP. BY THE SECRETARY, FOREST, BTC, DIST. KOKRAJHAR, PIN-788870, ASSAM. 2:THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS CUM HEAD OF FOREST FORCE ASSAM ARANYA BHAWAN PANJABARI GUWAHATI DIST. KAMRUP (M) PIN-781037 ASSAM. 3:THE CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS CUM COUNCIL HEAD OF DEPTT. FORESTS Page No.# 2/4 BODOLAND TERRITORIAL COUNCIL DIST. KOKRAJHAR ASSAM. 4:THE DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER PARBATJHORA DIVISION SUPARIGHAT DIST. KOKRAJHAR ASSAM. 5:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER KOKRAJHAR DIST. KOKRAJHAR ASSAM Advocate for the petitioner(s): Ms. D Mahanta Advocate for the respondent(s): Ms. B Bhuyan, Senior Advocate & Standing Counsel, BTC Ms. U Das, Addl. Senior Govt. Advocate B E F O R E HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH ORDER 29.10.2025 Heard Ms. D Mahanta, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners. Ms. B Bhuyan, the learned Senior Counsel, who appears on behalf of the respondent Nos.1, 3 and 4, Mr. RR Gogoi, the learned counsel, who appears on behalf of the respondent No.2 and Ms. U Das, the learned Addl. Senior Govt. Advocate, Assam, who appears on behalf of the respondent No.5. 2. The petitioners herein are aggrieved by the issuance of the Sale Notice Page No.# 3/4 dated 29.11.2021 on the ground that the same is not in compliance with Rules 32, 33 and 34 of the Assam Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 2013 as amended by the Assam Minor Mineral Concession (Amendment) Rules, 2018. 3. Ms. D Mahanta, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that in terms with the Assam Minor Mineral Concession (Amendment) Rules, 2018 (for short, the amending Rules of 2018), the words ‘competitive bids/open auction’ appearing in Sub-Rule (1) of Rule 32, Sub-Rule(1) of Rule 33, Sub Rule(2) of Rule 34 have been substituted by the word ‘e-auction’. The learned counsel, therefore, submits that under such circumstances, the respondent No.4 could not have issued a Sale Notice on 29.11.2021, when such Sale Notice could have been only by way of e-auction. 4. It is seen that pursuant to the filing of the instant writ petition, this Court vide an order dated 20.11.2021 directed the respondent No.4 not to finalise the bids submitted by the bidders in terms with the Sale Notice dated 29.11.2021 and further permitted the petitioners to participate in the said bid process. The interim order thereupon had been extended from time to time. But the respondents, more particularly, the respondent Nos.3 and 4 have not filed any affidavit-in-opposition. 5. Today, when the matter is being taken up, Ms. B Bhuyan, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the BTC submitted that as per the instruction(s) so provided, the BTC had not evolved the e-auction mechanism. Under such circumstances, this Court enquired with the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the BTC as to under what provisions, the BTC authorities then settles the rights of minor minerals within their territory. The learned Senior Counsel submitted with all fairness that the BTC authorities take steps for settling the minor minerals in terms with the Assam Minor Minerals Concession Page No.# 4/4 Rules, 2013. 6. This Court duly perused the provisions of Rules 32, 33 and 34 of the Rules of 2013 as amended by the amending Rules of 2018 whereby it is seen that the settlement by way of ‘competitive bids/open auction’ had been substituted by e- auction w.e.f. 29.10.2018 i.e. the date of publication of the amending Rules of 2018 in the Official Gazette. Under such circumstances, the impugned Sale Notice dated 29.11.2021 so issued cannot be sustained in law, for which, the same is set aside and quashed. 7. Accordingly, the writ petition, therefore, stands allowed thereby setting aside the Sale Notice dated 29.11.2021. 8. The respondents in the BTC would be at liberty to put on sale, the Sand Mahals which were the subject matter of the Sale Notice dated 29.11.2021 in accordance with the extant law i.e. Rule 32, 33 and 34 of the Rules of 2013. JUDGE Comparing Assistant