WP(C) 4230/2009 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJAN GOGOI Heard Mr. J. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. V. L. Sinha, lear ned Govt. Advocate, Assam appearing for the respondents. As agreed to by the learned counsels for the parties and in view of the subject matter involved the writ petition is being disposed of at the admission stage. The Bogoli Sand & Gravel Mahal under Lakhimpur Territorial Forest Division was s ettled with the petitioner for the period 2006-2008. According to the petitioner , for various reasons the Mahal could not be operated for a total period of 488 days during the two years settlement period. According to the petitioner he was unable to extract 1410 Cu. M. of gravel and 1085 Cu.M. of sand though the kist m oney in respect of the said quantity of gravel and sand have been paid by him. T he petitioner, therefore, sought an extension of the term of the Mahal which was granted for 90 days by the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests. Not being sa tisfied with the aforesaid extension granted the petitioner approached this Cour t by a writ petition registered and numbered as WP(C) No.4494 of 2008. The said writ petition was decided on 1.10.2008 by directing due consideration of the pet itioner’s prayers for further extension. It appears that pursuant to the said or der of this Court the Deputy Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, Environment and Fo rest Department, by an order dated 11th November, 2008 granted six months furthe r extension to the petitioner to enable him to extract the balance quantity of t he materials for which value had already been paid. It is the case of the petiti oner that though work order was issued to him, as the public road on which the m aterials has to be carried after extraction was closed the petitioner could not operate the Mahal to remove the balance quantity. He, therefore, prayed for furt her extension which was recommended amongst others by the Chief Conservator of F orests (Territorial) by his letter dated 4.5.2009 addressed to the Commissioner and Secretary to the Government of Assam, Environment and Forest Department (Ann exure-4 to the writ petition). However, as no action has been forthcoming the pe titioner filed a representation dated 15.7.2009 for refund of the value of the u nextracted materials along with interest thereon. The present writ petition has been filed in the aforesaid circumstances. The learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Sarma, has submitted that the only p rayer of the petitioner before the Court would be for a direction to the respond ent authorities to return the value of unextracted materials which is lying in d eposit with the respondents. No return has been filed by the State; neither any instructions, as may have bee n received by the learned Govt. Advocate, have been placed before the Court. The facts stated by the petitioner i.e. that he was unable to operate the Mahal to remove the materials for which he had already paid the value stands amply for tified by the contents of the communication dated 4.5.2009 of the Chief Conserva tor of Forests (Territorial) (Annexure-14 to the writ petition). In the said com munication it has been stated that the petitioner could not avail of the extende d period of six months to extract the balance value paid material on account of the circumstances stated in the said communication i.e. closure of the road. The State does not dispute that the petitioner had paid the value for materials whi ch he was unable to extract for reasons beyond his control in spite of the exten sion granted to him pursuant to the Court’s order dated 1.10.2008 passed in WP(C ) No.4494/2008. If the petitioner had paid the value of the material and he was unable to extract the full quantity thereof for reasons beyond his control, to p ermit the State to retain the value of such materials paid by the petitioner, in the considered view of the Court would amount to unjust enrichment on the part of the State. The facts as aforesaid, which are not in dispute, do not show any latches, inaction or negligence on the part of the petitioner in the matter of e xtraction of the value paid materials. The Court, therefore, is of the opinion t hat the petitioner would be entitled to refund of the value paid material the ex act quantity of which and the value thereof will be determined by the State auth orities on the basis of the records of the case. This will be done within a peri od of six weeks from the date of receipt of this order by the competent authorit y in the Forest Department whereafter such amount as may be found due to the pet itioner shall be paid to him within a further period of four weeks. In the event payment as may be found to be due is not tendered within the time schedule ment ioned in the present order the amount due to the petitioner will carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the due date of payment. The writ petition, consequently, shall stand allowed as indicated above.