Administrative authority must follow procedural fairness and apply statutory rules accurately when determining license renewals.

JUDGMENT :

PARTHA SARATHI SEN, J.

1. Since identical questions of facts and laws are involved in the instant two petitions, this court proposes to dispose of two instant writ petitions by a common judgment.

2. In both the writ petitions, the writ petitioner and the respondent State are represented by their respective learned advocates.

3. The subject matter of challenge in the instant two writ petitions is the Memo dated 05.05.2025 as issued by the respondent no.3/authority whereby and whereunder the respondent no.3/authority declined to renew the two mining leases as executed in favour of the writ petitioner on the basis of the representation dated 27.12.2024.

4. At the time of hearing, Mr. Bandyopadhyay, learned senior advocate appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner, at the very outset draws attention of this court to page no.34 of WPA 12080 of 2025 being a copy of grant dated 15.12.2004 as issued in favour of the writ petitioner for long term mining lease for exploitation of granite. It is submitted by Mr. Bandyopadhyay that similar such grant was executed in connection with the matter involved in WPA 12082 of 2025.

5. At this juncture, Mr. Bandyopadhyay draws attention of this court to page no.39 onwards of WPA 12080 of 2025 being a copy of lease dated 28.07.2005. It is submitted that in respect of WPA 12082 of 2025, similar such deed of lease was executed on the same date. It is further submitted by Mr. Bandyopadhyay that the said two lease deed contains a ‘renewal clause’.

6. Drawing attention of this court to the copy of the grant order dated 15.12.2004, it is further submitted by Mr. Bandyopadhyay that in the said grant, in the ‘terms and conditions’, it has been categorically mentioned by the respondent authorities that the terms and conditions of the mining lease as mentioned in Rule 21 of the West Bengal Minor Minerals Rules, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the said Rules of 2002’ in short) would apply mutatis mutandis, wherever they are applicable in respect of the instant mining lease and it has been further mentioned that the other general conditions as envisaged in the Granite Conservation and Development Rules, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the said Rules of 1999’ in short), such have to be abided by the lessee.

7. At this juncture, Mr. Bandyopadhyay took me to Rule 52 of the said Rules of 1999, which deals with the applicability of the provisions of the West Bengal Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the said Rules of 2016’ in short), framed by the State Government in granite quarry leases.

8. It is further submitted by Mr. Bandyopadhyay that in the event Rule 52 of the said Rules of 1999 is properly construed, it would reveal that keeping in mind the provision of Rule 52 of the said Rules of 1999, the aforementioned two clauses have been inserted in the grant dated 15.12.2004 under the heading ‘terms and conditions’.

9. At this juncture, Mr. Bandyopadhyay requests me to peruse the Memo dated 05.05.2025 which is under challenge. It is submitted by Mr. Bandyopadhyay that while issuing the Memo dated 05.05.2025, the respondent no.3/authority did not grant any opportunity of hearing to the writ petitioner and on the contrary, the respondent no.3/authority has misconstrued the pr