Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Jagannath Hansda vs State Of West Bengal & Ors on 28 February, 2022
28.02.2022
Court No.6.
S. De
Through Video Conference
M.A.T. 60 of 2022
I.A. No. CAN 1 of 2022
Jagannath Hansda.
Vs
State of West Bengal & Ors.
Mr. Milan Kumar Bhattacharyya, Ld. Sr. Adv.
Ms. Sulagna Bhattacharyya,
...for the appellant.
Mr. Sirsanya Bondyopadhyay,
...for the State.
By consent of the parties the appeal and the
connected application are taken up together for
hearing.
This appeal is preferred against a judgment and
order dated December 22, 2021 whereby W.P.A. 6269
of 2020 was disposed of.
The writ petitioner is in the business of sand
extraction from riverbeds in terms of licence granted to
him by the competent authority.
The writ petitioner was aggrieved by the
rejection of his application for grant of short term
mining lease (STML) in respect of the relevant plot.
One of his grievances was that the Revenue Inspector,
after due inspection of the concerned plot, returned
his finding that STML may be granted in favour of the
petitioner in respect of the relevant plot. The writ
petitioner challenged the rejection of his application
before a learned Single Judge by filing W.P. No.
18410(W) of 2018. By an order dated December 19,
2018, the order of the competent authority (ADM and
DL & LRO) was permanently stayed. The Authority
was directed to revisit the recommendation dated 27 th
January, 2014, made by the Revenue Inspector on an
in situ basis and take a just decision. The decision
was to be taken purely on merits. The competent
authority revisited the matter and again rejected the
petitioner's application for STML vide order dated
February 12, 2020. This order was challenged before
the learned Single Judge.
The learned Single Judge disposed of the writ
petition by granting liberty to the writ petitioner to
make e-application in terms of the West Bengal Minor
and Mineral (Concession) Rules 2016. The learned
Judge refused to interfere with the order of rejection of
the writ petitioner's application inter alia on the
ground that the writ petitioner has an alternative
remedy by way of an appeal under Rule 51 of the 2016
Rules. However, the learned Single Judge also held on
merits that the writ petitioner is not entitled to STML.
We have heard Mr. Bhattacharyya, learned
senior advocate for the appellant at length. We have
also heard Mr. Bondyopadhyay, learned Junior
Standing Counsel for the State.
We are of the view that since an alternative
remedy contemplated under the concerned Rules is
available to the writ petitioner, the learned Judge
ought to have merely granted liberty to the writ
petitioner to approach such appellate forum and not
gone into the merits of the case and record findings on
merits.
Be that as it may, we agree with the conclusion
of the learned Single Judge to the extent the writ
petition was in effect dismissed. We are conscious
that existence of an efficacious alternative remedy is
not an absolute bar to the maintainability of a writ
petition. However, when such a remedy is available to
the aggrieved person, ordinarily the High Court will
not interfere in the exercise of its High Prerogative Writ
Jurisdiction. We grant liberty to the appellant to
approach the appellate authority contemplated under
the 2016 Rules with his grievance within four weeks
from date. If the writ petitioner approaches the
appellate authority within the time period indicated
above, and not otherwise, the appellate authority shall
consider and decide the appeal on merits, in
accordance with law and the applicable rules, without
going into the question of time bar, after observing the
principles of natural justice. The appellate authority
shall decide the appeal if filed within the prescribed
time period, uninfluenced by any observation in the
order dated December 22, 2021 passed by the learned
Single Judge in W.P.A. 6296 of 2020.
We have not gone into the merits of the case. All
questions are left open.
M.A.T. 60 of 2022 is, accordingly, disposed of
along with the connected application being I.A. No.
CAN 1 of 2022.
Urgent certified photostat copy of this order, if
applied for, shall be given to the parties as
expeditiously as possible on compliance with all the
necessary formalities.
(Kausik Chanda, J.) (Arijit Banerjee, J.)
