Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Nimat Sk vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 17 August, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CONSTITIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION
APPELLATE SIDE
The Hon'ble JUSTICE BIBEK CHAUDHURI
WPA 710 of 2007
Nimat Sk.
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
For the Petitioner: Mr. Anjan Bhatacharya, Adv.,
Mr. Gora Chand Samanta, Adv.
For the Respondent No.9: Mr. Anirban Dutta, Adv.
For the State Respondent: Mr. Suman Sengupta. Adv.,
Mr. Santan Panja, Adv.
Heard on: 26 July, 2023.
Judgment on: 17 August, 2023.
BIBEK CHAUDHURI, J. : -
1. On May 2004, the petitioner filed an application under Rule 5(2) of
the West Bengal Minor Mineral Rule, 2002 for grant of long term mining
lease of sand in respect of plot No.1560(P) measuring an area of about 6
acres at Mouza- Palitpur, JL No.132 under Police Station- Nanur in the
District of Birbhum for a period of 5 years before the Mining Officer-in-
Charge, Suri along with all necessary documents and requisite fees. The
petitioner also made an application for acquiring permission for extraction
of sand in respect of the plot in question considering availability of sand
in the applied area on the river bed of Ajoy. It is provided in Rule 9(1) of
the West Bengal Minor Minerals Rule, 2002 that in spite of in respect of
the same area more than one applicant has filed application, preference
shall ordinary to be given to the application received first, unless the State
Government or the officer authorized by it for special reason to be
recorded in writing, deciding to grant mining lease to an applicant whose
application is received subsequent to the first one. The petitioner is prior
applicant in respect of the applied area as such he is entitled to get
mining lease for sand in respect of the subject plot in question. It is
further stated by the officer-in-charge of Suri zone submitting feasibility
report in respect of the said plot. It is stated in the report that a long term
mining lease was issued in the name of one Bharat Chandra Das on 23rd
August 1999 covering entire applied area and the said lease expired on
22nd August, 2004. The said Bharat Chandra Das did not apply for
renewal of mining lease therefore the mining officer-in-charge
recommended grant of mining lease in favour of the petitioner. The
petitioner was also granted mining lease in respect of plot No.1481, 1558,
1560(P) and 1212 measuring 26 acres of land at Mouza- Palitpur under
Police Station Nanur in the district of Birbhum. Since the concerned state
authority failed to discharge their duty in respect of grant of mining lease
in favour of the petitioner, he preferred a writ petition being WP
No.2405(W) of 2004 before this Court. The said writ petition was disposed
of by Co-ordinate Bench vide order dated 9th November, 2004, directing
the concerned authority to consider and dispose of the application of the
petitioner as early as possible, positively within a period of three months
from the date of communication of the order. The said order was due
communicated to the Secretary, Commerce and Industries Department on
26th April, 2005. It is the case of the petitioner that he came to know from
the office of the Commerce and Industries Department on 29th April, 2005
that the previous lessee, namely Bharat Chandra Das filed an application
on 18th October, 2004 under Rule 5(2) of the West Bengal Minor Minerals
Rules, 2002 for grant of mining lease of sand in respect of the same plot.
During the pendency of his application for considering, the said Bharat
Chandra Das moved an application under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India being WP No.21633(W) of 2004 before this Court and a Co-
ordinate Bench vide order dated 13th January, 2005 disposed of the said
writ petition directing the respondent authority to consider petitioner's
application for renewal in accordance with the law and disposed of the
said application after giving reasonable opportunity of hearing to the said
Bharat Chandra Das and passed a reasoned order in respect of renewal
of lease in his favour. The petitioner did not receive any notice of the said
writ petition. Therefore any order passed in writ petition is not binding on
the petitioner. It is alleged by him that the authorities concerned in
collusion and connivance with Bharat Chandra Das most illegally,
wrongfully treated the application under Rule 5(2) of the West Bengal
Minor Minerals Rules, 2002 as an application under Rule 12(1) and
granted renewal of mining lease. It is alleged by the petitioner that the
subsequent act and the conduct of the authority is arbitrary,
discriminatory an unlawful. The petitioner submitted letter demanding
justice before the authority on 16th May, 2005. The said Bharat Chandra
Das was directed to appear personally before the Deputy Secretary on 21st
June, 2005 for a hearing in connection with the renewal of application for
mining lease of sand in respect of plot 1560(P) of Mouza- Palitpur within
Police Station Nanur. The Assistant Secretary to the Government of West
Bengal by a letter 13th July, 2005 informed the petitioner that mining
lease shall be granted in favour of him for a period of 5 years as per the
petitioner's application dated 24th April, 2004. Finally the private
respondent No.9 was granted long term mining lease sometime in
January, 2007. Therefore the petitioner has filed the instant writ petition
praying for issuance of Writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding the
respondent and their agent servants not to grant long term mining lease
in favour of private respondent No.9 in connection with plot No.1560(P)
measuring 6 acres of land of Mouza- Palitpur under Police Station- Nanur
and also directing the respondent to grant license in favour of the
petitioners.
2. I have heard the learned Advocate for the petitioner as well as the
learned Advocate for the State respondent. It is needless to say that
respondent No.6 as granted mining lease for 5 years on the basis of his
application dated 18th October, 2004. Such lease was granted sometime
in 2007 this effect the availability from the writ petition itself petitioner
prayer was rejected. However the instant writ petition is pending from
2007. The grievance of the petitioner is that the petitioner made an
application for grant of lease in respect of plot No.1560(P) on 24th May,
2004 where as proforma respondent applied for lease of the same area on
18th October, 2004. As per 2002 Rule, mining lease could be granted only
to the applicant who preferred the application first, the authority may
consider the subsequent applicant for grant of mining lease. However in
such case the state government is required to offer special reason for
acceptance of subsequent applicant.
3. Be that it may, I am in agreement with the learned Advocate for the
State respondent that as a result of efflux of time the instant writ becomes
infructuous case even assuming that the lease was granted to the private
respondent by the State respondent arbitrarily and illegally, the lease
period has ended on efflux of time in view of the West Bengal Minor
Minerals Rules, 2016, the procedure in granting mining lease has
changed altogether. At present mining can be granted only on auction
conducted by the District Magistrate of a District. For the purpose of
participation of auction in mining lease, an applicant shall meet the
requirement as specific in Rule 4(1) of the West Bengal Minor Minerals
Concession Rule, 2016 and the terms and conditions prescribed in the
mining lease deed as per format as provided in that Rule. Such auction
shall be conducted by electronic mode and the bid parameter and process
are delineated in Rule 8 and 9 of the said Rule.
4. Therefore the provision of grant of mining lease has altogether
changed during pendency of the instant writ petition. Under such
circumstances this Court is not in a position to grant any relief to the
petitioner.
5. For the reason stated above the instant writ petition is dismissed on
contest however without any costs.
(Bibek Chaudhuri, J.)
