Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010064472025 2025:GAU-AS:11134 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/2148/2025 HAREN SAIKIA S/O- LATE TOTOLA RAM SAIKIA, R/O- KAJALICHOKI, P.O. CHANDRAPUR, DIST- KAMRUP METRO, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 2 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY, ENVIRONMENT AND FOREST DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF ASSAM, DISPUR, GHY- 781006. 2:THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS AND HEAD OF FOREST FORCE ASSAM PANJABARI GUWAHATI-781037. 3:THE DIVISIONAL FORESTS OFFICER NAGAON DIVISION NAGAO For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. J. Sarmah, Advocate For the Respondent(s) : Mr. R. R. Gogoi, Standing Counsel Page No.# 2/3 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH ORDER Date : 18.08.2025 Heard Mr. J. Sarmah, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner and Mr. R. R. Gogoi, the learned Standing counsel appearing on behalf of the Forest Department. 2. Mr. R. R. Gogoi, the learned Standing counsel for the Forest Department submits that the instant writ petition ought not to be entertained taking into account that the petitioner has alternative and efficacious remedy in terms with Rule 68 of the Assam Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2013. 3. Mr. J. Sarmah, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner however submits that without there being any environmental clearance, the question of entering into an agreement did not arise and as such, the respondent authorities ought not to have refused to refund the first kist deposit inasmuch as on account of not granting the mining permit which was beyond the control of the petitioner, the petitioner could not enter into an agreement. 4. Having heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties, this Court is of the opinion that though the petitioner has an arguable case but taking into account there is an alternative remedy available which is efficacious, this Court is not inclined to entertain the writ petition inasmuch as there are certain factual adjudication which requires to be adjudicated as to whether the petitioner had taken due steps for applying the mining permit. Page No.# 3/3 5. Considering the above, this Court is not inclined to entertain the instant writ petition for which the writ petition stands dismissed. 6. Be that as it may, this Court however grants the liberty to the petitioner to file an appeal within 30 days from the date of the present order challenging the order dated 09.05.2024 before the Appellate Authority in terms with Rule 68 of the Assam Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2013. 7. It is observed that if such appeal is filed, the Appellate Authority shall decide the appeal without being influenced by the dismissal of the writ petition vide the present order. JUDGE Comparing Assistant