A contractor lacks locus to challenge cancellation of another’s mining permit without an independent legal right.

The Divisional Forest Officer, Karbi Anglong East Division, issued a mining permit on 29 December 2021 in favour of the Executive Engineer, PWD Kohora Road Division (Respondent No. 18), for extraction of specified quantities of sand gravel and stone materials from Pranpri Anglong PP Land, subject to royalty payment, environmental clearance and approval of the mining plan.

The PWD thereafter invited bids for engaging a third party to undertake extraction and processing of the minor minerals. The petitioner was selected, and an agreement was executed on 29 April 2022 for extraction of stone and sand gravel for 24 months.

The mining plan was approved only for two years and expired in 2023; an extension of environmental clearance granted on 2 January 2025 subsequently expired on 1 January 2026.

On 13 February 2025, the Secretary, Department of Environment and Forests, KAAC, cancelled the mining permit on grounds including pending Consent to Establish/Consent to Operate, earnest-money and security deposits, and unpaid kist amounts.

During the writ proceedings, communications dated 6 and 9 January 2026 permitted or approved the petitioner’s proposed quarrying and crushing operations, subject to statutory clearances, although the original permit had been issued to Respondent No. 18 and had not been revoked or restored.

Respondent No. 18 later expressed no objection to the petitioner’s extraction activities.

The petitioner challenged the cancellation order.

1. Whether the petitioner, who was not the holder of the mining permit, had an independent legal right or locus standi to challenge cancellation of the permit issued in favour of Respondent No. 18.

2. Whether the petitioner could lawfully undertake mineral extraction on the basis of the Notice to Proceed, subsequent KAAC communications and Respondent No. 18’s no-objection, without a fresh tender and the requisite statutory permissions.

3. Whether the cancellation of the mining permit dated 13 February 2025 could be challenged by the petitioner when neither the permit-holder nor the PWD Department had challenged it and no extension of the petitioner’s contract had been established.

The Court applied the Assam Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 2013, particularly Chapter VI, governing the grant and allocation of rights for extraction of minor minerals through the prescribed tender/auction or other legally authorised process.

The Court proceeded on the principle that a person who is not the mining-permit holder acquires no independent right to extract minerals merely through a contractual arrangement or administrative permission; any derivative right must flow from a valid subsisting permit held by the principal permit-holder.

It further applied the requirement that mining and quarrying operations can be undertaken only after obtaining all mandatory statutory clearances and permissions, including environmental and pollution-control approvals.

The Court also applied the principle of locus standi that a person cannot challenge cancellation of a permit where the permit was issued to another entity and the actual permit-holder has not challenged the cancellation.

The Court found that the mining permit was issued solely in favour of Respondent No. 18, whereas the petitioner relied only on the Notice to Proceed and the agreement dated 29 April 2022, which was valid for two years until 28 April 2024; no valid order extending that contract was produced.

The later communications issued by KAAC authorities could not independently authorise extraction because they did not address the cancellation of Respondent No. 18’s permit, did not restore or revoke the cancellation order, and did not establish a fresh lawful grant in favour of the petitioner.

Permitting the petitioner to extract without a fresh tender would conflict with Chapter VI of the 2013 Rules.

Since Respondent No. 18 remained the permit-holder and had not challenged the cancellation, and the petitioner had no independent statutory right in the mining area, the petitioner lacked locus standi to maintain the writ petition.

The subsequent KAAC communications and Respondent No. 18’s no-objection did not validate the petitioner’s operations or substitute for a lawful mining permit, fresh tender and mandatory statutory clearances.

The writ petition was accordingly dismissed.