Akashjyoti Konwar vs. The State Of Assam And 5 Ors

Facts

The petitioner, Akash Jyoti Konwar, proprietor of M/S East India Trading, operates a coal depot in Tinsukia, processing coal into coke coal. He claims to be GST registered and possess all necessary licenses. On June 28, 2024, his coal stock was seized without prior notice. A notice was issued to the landowner, who responded with documents on July 2, 2024, but no action followed. The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking release of the coal stock and a stay on the e-auction process. An interim order was passed on December 17, 2024, preventing the e-auction from being acted upon, which has been extended. The petitioner argues the action is illegal and violates Section 23-B of the Mines and Minerals (Development & Regulation) Act, 1957, and Section 100 of the Cr.P.C.

Held

The Court held that questions of fact are involved in the proceeding, which are disputed. The Assam Minerals Regulation and Dealers Rules, 2020, clearly provide for appeal and revision. The Court noted that the petitioner's licenses from the Gaon Panchayat and the Department of Mines and Minerals were for periods subsequent to the seizure date of June 28, 2024. While the petitioner expressed apprehension about the appeal being entertained due to the expiry of the limitation period, the Court opined that the grievance could be raised before the Appellate Authority under Rule 12 of the Rules of 2020. To serve the interest of justice, considering the writ petition was filed promptly and an interim order was in operation, the Court directed the Appellate Authority to entertain the appeal without insisting on a delay condonation application. The appeal is to be decided on its merits, with an opportunity for hearing and a speaking order. The interim order remains operative until the appeal is decided.

Key Issues

1. Whether the seizure of coal stock by the respondents was conducted in accordance with the law, specifically concerning the provisions of Section 23-B of the Mines and Minerals (Development & Regulation) Act, 1957, read with Section 100 of the Cr.P.C.? 2. Whether the petitioner has made out a case for equitable relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, considering the validity of his licenses and permissions at the time of seizure? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contends that he holds all necessary licenses and permissions, including those from the Gaon Panchayat and the Department of Mines and Minerals, and has fulfilled other formalities. He asserts that the seizure was illegal, violating Section 23-B of the Mines and Minerals (Development & Regulation) Act, 1957, and Section 100 of the Cr.P.C. He also argues that e-way bills are not required for transactions below Rs. 50,000. Revenue/State's arguments: The State argues that the Assam Minerals Regulation and Dealers Rules, 2020 (Rules of 2020) provide for appeal and revision under Rules 12 and 13. They contend that the petitioner's submitted licenses (Gaon Panchayat and Mines and Minerals) are for periods subsequent to the seizure date (June 28, 2024). Furthermore, they claim there are no e-way bills to justify the petitioner's business transactions, and therefore, he is not entitled to equitable relief.