The court held that the appellant's application became ineligible under Rule-61 of the 2016 Rules, and the appellant had no vested right to obtain a mining lease under the old Rules of 2002.

JUDGMENT

Rai Chattopadhyay, J. - Appellant/writ petitioner is the unsuccessful applicant before the respondent authority, whose prayer for grant of long term mining lease has failed and/or not been considered. Thus arose the writ petition being W.P.No 7586(w) of 2016, at his instance. The same has been disposed of by dint of the order dated June 9, 2016, unfavourable to him, leaving him bootless in accomplishing his goal as stated above and impugned in this appeal.

2. The question, to be adjudicated in this appeal is precisely whether the West Bengal Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 2016, would govern the field, whether application by the appellant for grant of mining lease dated August 5, 2003, shall be non est, in the eye of law, in view of the provisions of the 2016 Rules or the appellant's case would be governed under the old Rules of 2002, i.e, taking into account the date of his first application and if so, whether the purported action/inaction of the respondent authority to deny appellant's prayer, would amount to impairing his legal and constitutional rights.

3. The case has a chequered background. Appellant submitted his application for grant of long term mining lease, in the office of Mining Officer in Charge of Suri Zone, in district Birbhum, on August 5, 2003. He sought permission respecting 26.00 acres of land, being Plot No 1481 to 1558, 1560(P), 1212(P), of Mouza - Palitpur, J.L.No.132 under Nanur Police Station. Respondent's inaction in considering his application, forced him to file his first writ petition in this court being W.P. No 20451(w) of 2004, in which an order was passed on November 9, 2004, as narrated below :

'Having heard the Ld. Counsel appearing for the respective parties and considering the facts and circumstances of this case, I dispose of this writ petition by directing the respondents to consider and dispose of the application of the petitioner for grant of long term mining lease in respect of the plot in question as early as possible but positively within a period of three months from date.

Meanwhile, there will be an interim order to the effect that the petitioner shall be at liberty to extract sand from the river bed in question upon payment of usual royalty and other dues to the State Respondents. The petitioner shall once in a week intimate to the official concerned about the extraction of the sand and the said authority shall impose the royalty at the rate chargeable and payable under the West Bengal Minor Mineral Rules.

However, the petitioner would be allowed to extract sand in the event the plot in question is on the river bed of Mayurakshi.

The petitioner shall make payment of such royalty regularly and in default of making such payment, the respondent authorities would be at liberty to take appropriate steps against the petitioner in accordance with law.'

4. According to the appellant/writ petitioner, respondents have never complied with court's order, as above, by considering his application, though accepted royalty and cess from him, till December 30, 2013, in the event of his extracting sand as per court's directions, as above. It is stated that the respondent authority had also issued successive quarry permit/road challan, during the said period of time, in favour of the appellant/writ petitioner.

5. The next writ petition, being W.P.No. 710(w) of 2007, was moved by the appellant, in this court, challenging grant of mining lease by the authorities, in favour of some other person, with respect to the same plot of land, for which the appellant had already applied and with the allegation that the authority has done so, keeping the application of the appellant pending. The Ld. Single Bench protected the appellant there, by an order dated March 14, 2007, restraining the respondent authorities from handing over possession of the land to the lessee. The lessee being aggrieved, had preferred to file an appeal being MAT No. 1588 of 2007 against said order dated March 14, 2007, which was dismisse