Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010002882026 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/197/2026 AASHI MANAS AGGREGATES AND ANR A REGISTERED PARTNERSHIP FIRM HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE/PLACE OF BUSINESS SITUATED AT 9 BIGHA, KHERDANDA, CHIRANG, BTAD, P.O. AMGURI, P.S. AMGURI, DISTRICT- CHIRANG, PIN- 783393, AND IS REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE/PARTNER, SMT SANJANA BERIYA, WIFE OF SHRI UMESH BERIYA, RESIDENT OF DUPLEX NO. 3, SEVENTH FLOOR, ARUNA BLOCK, AASHI PRIDE, KUMARPARA, F.A. ROAD, GUWAHATI- 781001, ASSAM 2: SMT SANJANA BERIYA WIFE OF SHRI UMESH BERIYA RESIDENT OF DUPLEX NO. 3 SEVENTH FLOOR ARUNA BLOCK AASHI PRIDE KUMARPARA F.A. ROAD, GUWAHATI- 781001 ASSA VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT, FOREST AND CLIMATE CHANGE, GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, ASSAM SECRETARIAT, DISPUR,GUWAHATI-781006. 2:THE BODOLAND TERRITORIAL COUNCIL REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY BTC, FOREST AND WILDLIFE DEPARTMENT BODOFA NWGWR BODOLAND TERRITORIAL COUNCIL SECRETARIAT KOKRAJHAR ASSAM, PIN- 783370 Page No.# 2/4 3:THE ADDITIONAL PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS CUM COUNCIL HEAD OF DEPARTMENT FOREST DEPARTMENT BODOOLAND TERRITORIAL COUNCIL KOKRAJHAR ASSAM 4:THE DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER CHIRANG DIVISION KAJALGAON DISTRICT- CHIRANG BTAD, ASSA Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. N BARUAH, MS. P DUTTA Advocate for the Respondent : SC, BTC, SC, FOREST BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI ORDER 16.06.2026 The instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed putting to challenge a communication dated 23.12.2025 issued by the DFO, Chirang Division whereby the earlier permission for sale depot was cancelled. It is case of the petitioner that such impugned order was passed without disclosing any reasons and even from the reasons which have been disclosed in the affidavit, the same appears to be irrelevant. 2. I have heard Shri N. Baruah, learned counsel for the petitioner. I have also heard Shri N. R. Sarma, learned counsel representing BTC. 3. Shri Baruah, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has been running the business of stone crushing by installing a machine and has also got a sale depot. Both the process are required to be operated by seeking permission which the petitioner was holding and those Page No.# 3/4 were also extended from time to time. So far as the sale depot is concerned, the last order of extension was dated 10.12.2025 for a period of 1 year. However, vide the impugned order passed about 13 days thereafter on 23.12.2025, the sale depot renewal was cancelled. As indicated above, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that no reasons have been prescribed for such cancellation. 4. By drawing the attention of this Court to the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent nos. 2 - 4 on 04.06.2026, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the affidavit contains some reasons which trace back to an order of the High Court in WP(C)/6716/2021 dated 29.10.2025. Pursuant there to there is a lessee Resolution dated 09.12.2025. 5. The learned counsel has submitted that the order referred is not at all applicable to the facts of the instant case. He has highlighted that the subject matter was wholly different wherein the petitioner in that case had prayed for adopting the e-auction mode for distribution of State largesse. On the other hand, the petitioner is running a stone crusher machine wherein he purchases uncut stone, crushes it to a particular sizes and sell as per permission. He has submitted that there is total non-application of mind while issuing the impugned order and therefore interference is required. 6. Shri Sarma, the learned counsel for the BTC has fairly submitted that because of some lack of understanding, the order of this Court was applied in the present situation also. However, he has denied that there was any mala fide in the said decision. He has also submitted that subsequently a clarification order has been passed on 12.01.2026 whereby the impugned order has been kept in abeyance. Page No.# 4/4 7. The order dated 29.10.2025 passed by this Court in WP(C)/6716/2021 has been carefully perused. 8. The subject matter of the said writ petition was with regard to the aspect of grant of Mahals without compliance with the Rules contained in the Assam Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2013 as amended. This Court had directed for strict compliance of the Rules including adoption of the e-auction mode. The impugned order was purportedly issued in accordance with an Executive Council (EC) Resolution dated 09.12.2025 which states that the same was in accordance with the order dated 29.10.2025 of the High Court. 9. It clearly appears that the directions passed by this Court and the resolutions of the EC would not and cannot be on the kind of business which is being run by the petitioner. In fact, the learned counsel appearing for the BTC has already placed on record the communication dated 12.01.2026 whereby the impugned orders have been kept in abeyance. 10. In view of the above, this Court finds merit in the petition. Resultantly, the impugned letter dated 23.12.2025 is interfered with and set aside. The petitioner would be allowed to run his business in accordance with law. 11. The communication dated 12.01.2026 along with forwarding letter is made part of the records. JUDGE Comparing Assistant