The main legal point established in the judgment is that the exceptional circumstances for granting short term mining licence (STML) under the West Bengal Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 2016 must be strictly interpreted, and the petitioner did not have a vested right to claim STML for sand mining in the particular area.

JUDGMENT :

Jay Sengupta, J:

1. This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for setting aside of the order dated 25.01.2021 being Annexure P-6 to the writ petition directing the respondent authorities not to give effect to the said order and directing them to grant STML in favour of the petitioner in respect of plot no. 554-P under Mouza – Dhanyagram, District – Birbhum.

2. Learned senior counsel representing by the petitioner submitted as follows. The writ petitioner was granted quarry permit in respect of secluded plot No. 554(P) in Dhanyagram Mouza, Suri, Birbhum on payment of royalty against the specified quantity of sand. On each occasion, such permission was recommended by Revenue Inspector. This exercise used to be made under West Bengal Minor and Mineral Rules, 2002. The West Bengal Minor and Mineral Rules, 2002 stood repeated by West Bengal Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2016 having come into effect from 29.07.2016 (hereinafter, referred to as 2016 Rules). In terms of Rule 44 of the 2016 Rules, the petitioner applied on 10.05.2018 for short term mining licence by paying Rs. 3000/-in Form E knowing fully well that plot no. 554(P) would not be more than 3 hectares for a period of 90 days with the rider that short term mining licence would not be renewed. The said application was rejected by District Land and Land Reforms Officer, Birbhum on 24.05.2018 on the ground that there was no explicit and a relevant order from any Competent Authority and/or from Hon’ble Court of law, but advised petitioner to take part in E-auction process for LTML. Under 2016 Rules, long Term Mining Lease (LTML) is governed by Rule 41 of Rules, 2016 read with Rule 5 (period of lease for river – bed occurrences upto 10 years) and Rule 6 (area of mining lease will be 5 hectares in case of river bad occurrence). Rule 47 of 2016 Rules provided that every short term mining licence for minor minerals granted under Rule 43, shall be subject to the condition as specified by the Commerce & Industries Department. Till date no conditions had been specified other than Rules 43, 44, 48. LTML (Long Term Mining Lease) was governed by West Bengal Minor Minerals (Auction) Rules, 2016, but the Auction Rules did not apply to short term mining licence (for a period of 90 days). In LTML big businessman took part where bid money always became more than Rupees Eight crores. For LTML E-auction, separate machinery was provided. Rules 43 provided four guidelines (non-statutory requirements) – (a) Judicial Intervention, (b) Non-availability of continuous stretch of minimum area specified in these rules due to hydro geological conditions of rivers, (c) unsuitability of any stretch for sustaining the period specified in these Rules owing to possible change of river flow pattern, (d) for any other reason to be stated in writing, Plot 554(P) Dhanyagram had been specified for quarry permit. Now, the Judgment and Order in W.P. No. 18410 (W) of 2018) of permanent stay of order of DL & LRO dated 24.05.2018 constituted Judicial intervention. Plot 554(P) was never found unsuitable due to change of river flow. As there was no bar to grant STML for 90 days without any renewal, there would be no occasion of change of river flow since it was a secluded plot, not in array with other sand Blocks for which e-auction had been held by competent authority getting lease bid upto Rupees Eighteen Crores. In the said writ petition W.P. No. 1840 (W) of 2018, order of DL & LRO dated 24.05.2018 was under challenge. This Court passed a direction that impugned order dated 24.05.2018 stood permanently stayed. In terms of order to revisit, the DL & LRO passed an order on 12.02.2020 allegedly considering the merits, but not allowing STML (page 50 of the writ petition). No reasons whatsoever were given in the order. Against the said order dated 12.02.2020 passed by DL & LRO, the petitioner moved W.P.A. 6296 of 2020, CAN No. 1 of 2020, which was dismissed by the Learned Tria