Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010021772026 2026:GAU-AS:3288- DB THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : PIL/18/2026 MOTIUR RAHMAN BORBHUYAN S/O AKIL ALI BORBHUYAN, R/O VILL- DOBOKA PATHAR, P.S.- DOBOKA, DIST- HOJAI, ASSAM-782440 VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA AND 9 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, SHASTRI BHAWAN, NEW DELHI 2:THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT FOREST AND CLIMATE CHANGE INDIRA PARYAVARAN BHAWAN JORBAGH ROAD NEW DELHI-110003 3:THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM DISPUR SECRETARIAT COMPLEX GUWAHATI-6 4:THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM ENVIRONMENT AND FOREST DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI-6 5:THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS AND HEAD OF FOREST FORCE H-BLOCK Page No.# 2/5 2ND FLOOR JANATA BHAWAN DISPUR GUWAHATI-781006 ASSAM 6:THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS (WILDLIFE) H-BLOCK 2ND FLOOR JANATA BHAWAN DISPUR GUWAHATI-781006 ASSAM 7:DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER NAGAON NH 36 HAIBARGAON DACCAPATTY NAGAON ASSAM-782001 8:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY MINES AND MINERALS DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM DISPUR SECRETARIAT COMPLEX GUWAHATI-6 9:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER HOJAI DISTRICT SRIMANTA SANKARDEV NAGAR NH-27 PIN-782442 ASSAM 10:KAMAL AHMED S/O KHALILUR RAHMAN DIST- HOJAI P.S.- DOBOKA ASSAM-78244 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. T K BHUYAN, K M KALITA Advocate for the Respondent : DY.S.G.I., SC, FOREST,GA, ASSAM Page No.# 3/5 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KAUSHIK GOSWAMI ORDER Date : 06/03/2026 (Michael Zothankhuma, J) 1. Heard Mr. M. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. D. Gogoi, learned Standing Counsel, Forest Department, Assam and Mr. P. Saikia, learned Government Advocate, Assam, appearing for the respondent nos. 3 & 9. 2. The present petition has been filed espousing the cause of the villagers of village Bheloguri, in view of the alleged pollution and destruction caused to the stream which has been feeding the people of Bheloguri village. 3. The petitioner’s case is that due to the rampant illegal mining and quarrying operations being done around the vicinity of Daboka Reserve Forest, especially by the respondent no. 10, without obtaining prior environmental clearance as per the statutory notification dated 14/09/2006 issued by the Ministry of Environment and Forest under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, there has been water pollution of the stream which feeds the people of Bheloguri village. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that due to the uncontrolled illegal mining, the same has led to destruction of the ecological balance of the entire region, particularly the area in the vicinity of the Daboka Reserve Forest. He submits that in terms of the notification dated 14/09/2006, the State Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA) is to provide environmental clearance and the area within which the environmental clearance certificate encompasses, is the area within which stone quarrying and mining can be done legally. The petitioner’s counsel submits that the respondent authorities should be directed to take appropriate measures to stop all illegal quarrying/mining activities in the Bheloguri hill in the Daboka Reserve Forest Area and to restore and reclaim the damaged forest land. Page No.# 4/5 Further, the respondent no. 10 should be imposed with a penalty proportionate to the extent of the water pollution caused by him to the stream feeding the villagers of Bheloguri village. He accordingly submits that a high level enquiry should be held, so as to fasten the liability of the illegal action of the respondent no. 10. 5. Mr. D. Gogoi, learned counsel for the Forest Department submits that all clearance certificates have to be issued to the selected contractor for mining/quarrying operations in terms of the notification dated 14/09/2006 and per se there should not be any illegality in the mining operation. He further submits that a roving enquiry cannot be made with regard to unsubstantiated allegations made by the petitioner. 6. We have considered the case of the petitioner as set forth in the writ petition. We have also noticed the prayer made by the petitioner, which would amount to having roving enquiry with regard to the allegations set out therein. To ensure that the State respondents are given a chance to explain the allegations made by the petitioner, we are of the view that the petitioner should submit a detailed representation to the State respondents and particularly to the respondent nos. 4, 5 & 6, with regard to the allegations of illegal mining and pollution of the stream feeding the people of Bheloguri village. 7. The petitioner should submit his detailed representation to the respondent nos. 4, 5 & 6, who shall thereafter take a decision on the same, within a period of 1 (one) month from the date of receipt of the representation. The decision should thereafter be communicated to the petitioner. 8. In the event, any allegation is made with regard to the alleged illegal mining operation and quarrying being done by the respondent no. 10, the respondent nos. 4, 5 & 6 shall take a decision on the representation of the petitioner, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the respondent no. 10. Page No.# 5/5 9. With the above observation, the PIL stands disposed of. JUDGE JUDGE Comparing Assistant