The discretion of the competent authority to renew a mining contract is subject to the fulfillment of conditions as enumerated in the Rules, and the word 'may' in Rule 19 does not create an obligation to renew. The petitioner has a vested right to have their renewal application considered in accordance with the specified criteria.

1. Heard Mr. P Mahanta, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. D Gogoi, learned standing counsel for the Environment and Forest Department and Mr. K Gogoi, learned CGSC for the respondent No. 4.

2. The petitioner has inter alia assailed a speaking order dated 26.04.2022 passed by the respondent no. 2 whereby the application submitted by the petitioner for renewal of the mining contract in respect of the mining contract area viz. “Chiri River Minor Mineral [Sand] Unit-2” [‘the Mining Contract Area’, for short] has not been considered and a decision has been taken to put the said Mining Contract Area into a fresh E-auction sale. The petitioner has also assailed a Long E-auction Notice published by the respondent no. 4 on 29.04.2022 whereby, online bids have been invited to settle the same Mining Contract Area under the provisions of the Assam Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2013 [‘the 2013 Rules’, for short].

3. The petitioner earlier approached this court by filing a writ petition being WP(C) 919/2022 assailing an NIT dated 08.01.2022 and corrigendum dated 07.02.2022 for fresh settlement of the mine in question. The further challenge was an order dated 19.01.2022, whereby the petitioner was asked to remove his men and machinery from the mining site at the end of kist period i.e. on 16.02.2022. The said writ petition was disposed by an order 11.02.2022 by waiving the period of 18 months (prior to expiry of an existing contract) prescribed under Rule 19(1) of the 2013 Rules for seeking renewal of contract with a further direction to the competent authority, i.e. the respondent No. 2 to consider the application of the petitioner for renewal within the parameter prescribed under Rule 19 and Rule 20 of the 2013 Rules. It was further provided in the said order that till the disposal of the application for renewal, tender process initiated by E-auction notice dated 08.01.2022 in respect of the Mining Contract in question shall not be given effect to.

4. Thereafter, the respondent authority considered the renewal application filed by the petitioner and the by the impugned order dated 26.04.2022 rejected the claim of the petitioner for renewal of the mining contract and such order is under challenge in the present writ petition.

5. Argument advanced by Mr. P. Mahanta, learned counsel for the petitioner:

I. The impugned order dated 26.04.2022 passed by the competent authority does not indicate that the competent authority has considered the aspects stipulated in Rule 20 (1) of the 2013 Rules.

II. The competent authority while passing the impugned order, has considered only the aspect of revenue, that too, on the basis of a report from a Sub-ordinate authority. It is the bounden duty of a competent authority to exercise its discretion while deciding the matter of renewal after having a satisfaction that the contractor has undertaken mining operation strictly in accordance with the terms and conditions of the grant etc. However, evidently such determination/satisfaction is absent in the impugned order dated 26.04.2022.

III. The impugned order does not disclose that the competent authority either have considered the aspects outlined under Clause (i) to (vi) of Rule 20(1) of the 2013 Rules.

IV. The phrase “such other matters” used in clause (vii) of rules 20(1) is to be read as ejusdem generis with the previous clauses i.e. clause (i) to Clause (vi) and therefore, the revenue cannot be the sole consideration/satisfaction for rejection of renewal.

V. Mr. Mahanta, also argues that the petitioner is having a vested right for consideration of his renewal application in terms of Clause-(vi) of Rule 20(1) of the Rules, 2013 inasmuch as the petitioner has raised issues of investment and non return of benefit for reasons beyond the control of the petitioner and also for reasons attributable to inaction of the respondent authorities.

VI. In support of the aforesaid contentions, Mr. Mahanta, learned counsel relies on the decision of the Hon’ble Ap