Abdul Hasmat vs State Of Assam And 5 Ors

Heard Mr. F.U. Barbhuiya, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. K.P. Pathak, learned standing counsel, Forest Department, appearing

for all the respondents.

Issue notice, returnable within 4(four) weeks.

No formal steps are called for in respect of the respondents, as they are duly represented.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has challenged the impugned order dated 08.03.2021 issued by the respondent No.5 directing the petitioner to

deposit forest royalty and other Government dues against the 6th year 3rd and the 6th year 4th quarter kist. According to the petitioner, the royalty

demanded by the authorities pertains to a period when he was not able to run the Sand Mahal on account of expiry of environmental clearance i.e.

from 15.12.2020 till date. However, after the environmental clearance has been given, the authorities are permitting the petitioner to resume operation

of the Sand Mahal contract work, the authorities are insisting upon paying royalty for the aforesaid period when he had not undertaken any activity as

per the impugned notice dated 08.03.2021.

According to the petitioner, if the petitioner has to pay the royalty in respect of the period when he was not undertaking any activity in the Sand Mahal,

it would be unfair and would be prejudicial to him as it was not his fault that he did not operate was not allowed to operate because of the expiry of the

environmental clearance. Accordingly, the petitioner has sought for stay of this impugned order dated 08.03.2021 to enable him to proceed working on

the Sand Mahal without paying the royalty in respect of the aforesaid period.

Mr. K.P. Pathak, Ld. Standing Counsel, Forest Department, however, has submitted that it is not only for the aforesaid period, but there are some

other periods in respect of which arrears are pending in respect of the petitioner. He submits that even if the petitioner is allowed to start operating the

Sand Mahal without paying the aforesaid royalty which will be subject to further order of this Court, the petitioner should clear the earlier arrears, for

which the learned standing counsel, Forest Department, has drawn attention of this Court to the order dated 08.04.2021 by passed by the respondent

No.5 informing the petitioner of the other arrears payable by the petitioner.

In that view of the matter, in the interim, let the petitioner start operating the Sand Mahal without being insisted upon to pay royalty in terms of the

impugned order dated 08.03.2021, and payment of arrear for the said will be subject to the order of this Court. In other words, the petitioner may not

be insisted upon to pay royalty for the period which he could not operate i.e. from 15.12.2020 till date. However, as regards other periods where the

petitioner was operating the Sand Mahal, he will be liable to pay the arrears. In view of the above, the operation of the subsequent order dated

26.04.2021 issued by the respondent No.2 will be subject to the above direction of this Court. Accordingly, in the interim and until further order, the

petitioner may be allowed to operate the Sand Mahal immediately subject to payment of arrears except for the period mentioned above.