The court affirmed the authority's discretionary power to deny renewal of a mining lease based on lessee's violations under the Granite Conservation and Development Rules, emphasizing lawful discretion in lease management.

JUDGMENT :

PARTHA SARATHI SEN, J.

1. Since in WPA 22582 of 2025 and in WPA 22585 of 2025 the subject matter of challenge is identical and since identical questions of facts and laws are involved in both the instant two writ petitions, this Court proposes to dispose of the instant two writ petitions by a common judgment.

2. The subject matter of challenge in the instant two writ petitions is the order dated 09.09.2025 as has been passed by the respondent no.4/authority.

3. For convenience, this Court while passing the instant judgment shall deal with the relevant pages of WPA 22585 of 2025 which are also common in WPA 22582 of 2025.

4. At the time of hearing Mr. Basu, learned senior advocate appearing on behalf of the writ petitioners at the very outset draws attention of this Court to page nos.51 to 113 of the instant writ petition, being a copy of the registered deed of lease dated 28.07.2025, as has been executed by the respondent/State as lessor in favour of the respondent no.1 as lessee. Admittedly, the said deed of lease for a period of twenty years for the purpose of quarry of granite from the leasehold area, particulars of which has been mentioned in the schedule of the said deed of lease.

5. At this juncture, Mr. Basu requests me to took to the renewal clause of the said registered deed of lease, as available at page no.102. It is submitted by Mr. Basu that from the renewal clause of the said deed of lease, it would reveal that the aforementioned mining lease shall be renewable for one period not exceeding the period specified in Rule 12(2) at the option of the lessees i.e. the writ petitioners herein, provided, however, the State Government may refuse to renew a mining lease over the whole or part of the area covered by the original lease, for which the renewal has been prayed for.

6. At this juncture, Mr. Basu again draws attention of this Court to page nos.105 to 106 of the WPA 22585 of 2025, being the relevant clause of the said deed of lease regarding “breach of any of the conditions of the lease”. It is submitted by Mr. Basu that the said breach of condition postulates for payment of penalty by the lessee even for cancellation of the deed of lease, in the event, any breach has not remedied within the stipulated period even after service of notice.

7. At this juncture, Mr. Basu draws attention of this Court to the judgment dated 04.07.2025 as passed by this Court in WPA 12080 of 2025 along with WPA 12082 of 2025, a copy of which has been annexed at page nos.174 to 182 of the instant writ petition.

8. It is submitted by Mr. Basu that under cover of the said judgment, this Court while disposing the said two writ petitions directed the respondent no.3/authority therein to consider the representation dated 27.12.2024 for renewal of two mining leases, which are subject matter of the instant two writ petitions afresh.

9. At this juncture, Mr. Basu draws attention of this Court to page nos.208 to 213 of WPA 22585 of 2025, being a copy of the order dated 09.09.2025 as passed by the respondent no.4/authority.

10. It is submitted by Mr. Basu that while passing the said reasoned order under challenge, the respondent no.4/authority noticed some alleged non- payment of penalty and alleged excess extraction of granite outside the leasehold area. It is submitted by Mr. Basu that the respondent no.4/authority while passing the said reasoned order, practically, places his reliance upon the aforementioned two alleged violations and, thus, proceeded to reject