Mining authorities cannot refuse lease extensions based on policy when statutory provisions support such extension, especially if the delay was not the lessee’s fault.

JUDGMENT :

PARTHA SARATHI SEN, J.

1. The parties to the instant writ petition are represented by their respective Counsels.

2. By filing the instant writ petition the writ petitioner has prayed for issuance of appropriate writ/writs against the respondents/authorities commanding them to take a decision in respect of the representations of the writ petitioner particulars of which has been mentioned in prayer (b) of the instant writ petition with a further prayer for issuance of appropriate writ against the respondents/authorities more specifically against the respondent nos. 4 and 5 commanding them to add the period during which the mining operations of the writ petitioner were kept suspended in respect of the sand mining block i.e., plot no. 967(P), block no. MNKT/Kankora/967(P)/A, admeasuring about 8.87 acres (3059 hectares), comprised within Mouza – Kankora, J.L. no. 84, P.S.Mongolkote, District – Purba Bardhaman.

3. For effective adjudication of the instant writ petition some chronology of events leading to filing of the instant writ petition are required to be dealt with and those are discussed thereunder in seriatim:

(i) Pursuant to a notice inviting e-auction for grant of mining lease of sand dated 29.11.2016 in respect of the sand block mentioned hereinabove the writ petitioner is found to be successful bidder.

(ii) Being a successful bidder a lease deed dated 31.12.2018 was executed by the respondent no. 4 (lessor) in favour of the writ petitioner (lessee) in respect of the aforementioned sand block for excavation and extraction of sand and the period of said lease was for five years.

(iii) On 24.01.2019 the possession of the said sand block was, however, handed over to the writ petitioner.

(iv) During the subsistence of the said lease the respondents/authorities noticed alleged violation on the part of the writ petitioner regarding excavation of sand beyond the leasehold area and accordingly the work of excavation of sand by the writ petitioner pursuant to the said deed of lease was suspended on and from April, 2019.

(v) The respondents/authorities issued a show-cause notice to the writ petitioner and on receipt of the reply of the writ petitioner the respondents/authorities were not satisfied and thus imposed a penalty to the tune of Rs. 47,85,657/- upon the writ petitioner for the alleged violation of the provisions of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘said Act of 1956’).

(vi) The said demand notice was challenged in a writ petition being WPA 11734 of 2021.

(vii) By an order dated 17.08.2021 a co-ordinate Bench disposed of the said writ petition whereby and whereunder the aforementioned demand to the tune of Rs. 47,85,657/- was quashed and at the same time the said Court remanded the proceeding as pending before the authority as against the writ petitioner for its logical conclusion within a stipulated period.

(viii) Upon remand the respondent no. 5/authority by his reasoned order dated 22.09.2021 found sufficient justification in the prayer of the writ petitioner. Accordingly, the proceeding as has been initiated on the allegation of excess mining was dropped. Consequently, the said respondent no. 5/authority passed an order for reopening of the relevant leased out sand block and permitted the writ petitioner to carry on his business of extraction and/or excavation of sand.

4. After completion of the said proceeding before the respondent no.5/authority the writ petitioner found that in terms of the said lease deed dated 31.12.2018 the writ petitioner could not carry on his business from April, 2019 to Sept