Dayaram Narzary vs. The Bodoland Territorial Council And 3 Ors

Held

The Court held that instead of keeping the writ petition pending, it could be disposed of by directing the respondent authorities in BTC, particularly respondent no. 4, to consider the petitioner's representation dated November 22, 2021 (note: the judgment text mentions 16.11.2021 for the representation, but the operative part refers to 22.11.2021, which is likely a typographical error in the judgment text itself) and dispose of it by passing a speaking order. The Court explicitly stated that it had not made any observations regarding the merits of the petitioner's claim. The operative direction was to consider and dispose of the representation within three weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order. No specific finding was made on the entitlement to extract the remaining quantity or extend the permit, as the matter was remanded for consideration of the representation.

Facts

The petitioner, Dayaram Narzary, applied for permission to extract sand and gravel from a non-mining area of the Dhansiri River. The Bodoland Territorial Council (BTC) authorities processed the application. On February 20, 2021, respondent no. 3 directed respondent no. 4 to allow extraction of 1000 M3. The petitioner was asked to deposit Rs. 1,20,000/- towards forest royalty, GST, rehabilitation fee, and IT, which he did on September 16, 2021. A Forest Permit was issued for 500 M3 from September 16, 2021, to November 16, 2021. The petitioner extracted only 120 M3 before being asked to stop extraction on October 6, 2021, without reason. The permit expired on November 16, 2021, with 380 M3 remaining unextracted. The petitioner submitted a representation on November 16, 2021, seeking permission to lift the remaining quantity by extending the permit period. As the representation remained unconsidered, the petitioner filed a writ petition.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to a direction for the extraction of the remaining quantity of sand and gravel from the permitted area by extending the permit period, considering the cessation of extraction without assigned reason and the subsequent expiry of the permit. Petitioner's argument: The petitioner argued that he was prevented from extracting the full permitted quantity of sand and gravel without any justification and that his representation seeking to lift the remaining quantity by extending the permit period should be considered. Revenue/State's argument: The respondent BTC authorities, through their Standing Counsel, submitted that since the petitioner's representation dated November 16, 2021, had not been disposed of, the writ petition could be disposed of with a direction to the respondent no. 4 to consider and dispose of the representation within a specific timeframe.