1. Heard Mr. A.D. Choudhury, learned counsel for the writ petitioner in WP (C) No. 5693/2015 and WP (C) No. 4214/2015 and Mr. M. Choudhury, learned counsel for the writ petitioner in WP (C) No. 19/2016. Also heard Mr. K.N. Choudhury, learned senior counsel, appearing for respondent no. 11 in WP (C) No. 5693/2015 and WP (C) No. 4214/2015 and also for respondent no. 7 in WP (C) No. 19/2016. Mr. R.K. Bora and Mr. P.K. Bora, learned standing counsel, Forest, appearing for respondent Nos. 4, 6, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 in WP (C) No. 5693/2015 and WP (C) No. 4214/2015 and also for respondent Nos. 3, 4, 5, 6 in WP (C) No. 19/2016 as well as Mr. S.C. Keyal, learned Assistant Solicitor General of India, appearing for respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 in WP (C) No. 5693/2015 and WP (C) No. 4214/2015 and also for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in WP (C) No. 19/2016 are also heard.

2. WP (C) No. 5693/2015 and WP (C) No. 19/2016 raise identical questions of law and facts and reliefs claimed are also similar. WP (C) No. 4214/2015 was earlier filed by the petitioner in WP (C) No. 5693/2015. However, because of subsequent developments, WP (C) No. 5693/2015 was filed and at the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioner in WP (C) No. 5693/2015 and WP (C) No. 4214/2015 submits that WP (C) No. 4214/2015 has been rendered infructuous. WP (C) No. 5693/2015 is filed by a registered Society comprising of members who are settlement holders and/or otherwise engaged in the business of sand/stone mahal. Writ petitioner in WP (C) No. 19/2016 is engaged in the business of mining of minor minerals and other ancillary businesses and participates in tender processes as and when tenders are issued by the Department of Environment & Forest for settlement of sand and other quarries.

3. The respondents in WP (C) No. 19/2016 are also respondents in WP (C) No. 5693/2015. In addition, some more respondents in the Departments concerned are also arrayed. In that sense, parties, factual matrix and reliefs prayed for being more or less identical, learned counsel for the parties submit that they will address their arguments on the basis of pleadings in respect of WP (C) No. 5693/2015. Accordingly, arguments have been heard on that basis and the present judgment is delivered with reference to pleadings and parties in WP (C) No. 5693/2015.

4. At the very outset, it will be appropriate to put on record that Assam Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1994 (for short, ‘1994 Rules’), was repealed by Assam Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2013 (for short, ‘2013 Rules’), as much of the arguments advanced had centered around on these two Rules.

5. The facts relevant for the purpose of disposal of the writ petitions, as presented in WP (C) 5693/2015, are that the writ petitioner came to learn that a new sand mahal by the name of Kordoiguri Sand Quarry No. 3, in Kulsi Reserved Forest, for an area of 1 Hector (Ha) for extraction of 2.5 Lakh Cubic Meter of sand was going to be opened and the same was going to be settled without inviting any open tender purportedly in compliance of an order of this Court dated 26.05.2015, passed in WP (C) 1545/2015 preferred by the respondent No. 11 of the present writ petition, whereby this Court directed the respondent authorities to take a decision regarding the grievance expressed by the respondent No. 11 of the present writ petition. The writ petition was filed by the present respondent No. 11 seeking a writ of mandamus directing the respondents therein to allow the writ petitioner (respondent No. 11 herein) to operate the sand mahal in terms of the Final Approval dated 11.06.2014, issued by the Deputy Conservator of Forest (Central), Government of India. Based on the pleadings in WP (C) 1545/2015, the petitioner came to learn that on the basis of an application dated 15.09.2011 of the respondent No. 11, the Deputy Secretary, Government of Assam, Environment and Forest, forwarded a proposal dated 29.02.2012 for diversion of 1 Ha of forest land for openi