The court established that mining authorities must act on compliance and show cause responses, ensuring statutory obligations are met regarding unlawful mineral excavation.

JUDGMENT :

PARTHA SARATHI SEN, J.

1. The parties are represented by their respective learned advocates. On behalf of the respondent State a report dated 10.07.2025 as prepared by the respondent no.4 is submitted and the same is taken on record.

2. By filing the instant writ petition, the writ petitioner has prayed for issuance of appropriate writ/writs against the respondent authorities; more specifically against the respondent no.3/authority, to grant extension of mining lease dated 08.05.2018 for a further period of 881 days in respect of Sand Block No.0121DM004, located in Plot No.1, lying in mouza Deulpara, J.L. No.2, P.S.-Patrasayer, District-Bankura over an area of 10.74 acres in the reiverbed of Damodar upon withdrawal of the suspension order dated 10.12.2020.

3. At the time of hearing, Mr. Islam, learned advocate appearing for the writ petitioner, duly assisted by Mr. Hossain, learned advocate, at the very outset draws attention of this court to page no.49 of the instant writ petition being a copy of the Letter of Intent dated 03.01.2018 as has been issued in favour of the writ petitioner by the respondent authorities.

4. It is submitted that from page nos.58 to 91 of the instant writ petition, it would reveal that subsequently on 08.05.2018 a lease deed was executed by and between the respondent no.3 (lessor) and the writ petitioner herein (lessee) for excavation of sand from the aforementioned sand block.

5. It is further submitted on behalf of the writ petitioner that after execution of the said deed of lease and after initiation of the work of excavation of sand from the said sand block, the writ petitioner had to stop the work of excavation as directed by the respondent authorities on various occasions on various grounds and on due compliance of the requisite formalities by the writ petitioner the work of excavation was resumed time to time.

6. At this juncture, the learned advocate for the writ petitioner draws attention of this court to page no.111 of the instant writ petition being a copy of the memo dated 10.12.2020 as issued by the respondent no.3/authority, whereby the writ petitioner was asked to show cause as to why the respondent authorities would not take appropriate action including termination of mining lease over the aforementioned sand block on the allegation of illegal mining activities on the part of the writ petitioner in contravention of the existing rules, guidelines, norms and procedure of mining.

7. It is further submitted that by the self-same memo dated 10.12.2020, the activity of the writ petitioner was suspended by the respondent no.3/authority.

8. It is submitted that soon thereafter i.e. on 20.09.2021 the writ petitioner replied to such show cause clearly indicating that on account of mistake the writ petitioner carried out the excavation work beyond the leased out area and at the same time, the writ petitioner assured the respondent no.3/authority that the writ petitioner would not commit similar such mistake in future.

9. It is the grievance of the writ petitioner that even on receipt of such reply, the respondent authorities more specifically the respondent nos.3 and 4 authority practically did nothing and did not take any steps for withdrawal of the suspension order as imposed upon the writ petitioner and as a result whereof, the period of lease for five years as has been executed on 08.05.2018 has expired.

10. At this juncture, attention of this court is drawn to Rule 50 of the West Bengal Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Rules' for short). It is