Back
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
PARTHA SARATHI SEN
Pradip Arora – Appellant
Versus
State of West Bengal – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. writ petition facts and context established. (Para 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. prayer for extension of lease discussed. (Para 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 3. legal arguments for lease extension presented. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 18 , 19) |
| 4. court's observations on state authority's inaction. (Para 13 , 14 , 23) |
| 5. court's decision to allow petition and extend lease. (Para 25 , 26 , 27) |
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 hectar
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.
The court established that mining authorities must act on compliance and show cause responses, ensuring statutory obligations are met regarding unlawful mineral excavation.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
