JUDGMENT :

PARTHA SARATHI SEN, J.

1. This Court has heard learned Advocate for the writ petitioner, learned Advocate appearing for the respondents/State and its functionaries and learned Advocate for the added respondent no. 8 at length.

2. The subject matter of challenge in the instant writ petition is the order dated 19.09.2023 as passed by the respondent no. 6/authority whereby and whereunder the writ petitioner’s representation for extension of the period of lease was not considered favourably.

3. From the materials as placed before this Court it reveals that admittedly the writ petitioner was the highest bidder in respect of sand block code no. 0108DR038 and on compliance of all the formalities by the writ petitioner a deed of lease was executed in favour of the writ petitioner for excavation of sand from the said sand block.

4. On the basis of allegation of illegal sand mining activities on the part of the writ petitioner the respondent no. 5/authority by his memo dated 07.03.2022 issued a suspension order against the writ petitioner from carrying on mining activity including transportation of sand and by the self-same memo the writ petitioner was directed to show-cause as to why appropriate action including termination of mining lease would not be issued.

5. The writ petitioner replied to such show-cause. The respondent no.6/authority while accepting the reply to the show-cause as submitted by the writ petitioner imposed a penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- which has been communicated to the writ petitioner vide memo dated 20.10.2022.

6. By way of bank transfer the writ petitioner forthwith transferred the said penalty amount together with balance royalty money to the respondent no. 6/authority.

7. It is submitted on behalf of the writ petitioner that even after payment of the penalty amount as imposed by the respondent no. 6/authority, the respondent no. 6/authority did not revoke the order of suspension as issued on 07.03.2022 then and there and ultimately upon much persuasion, such revocation was withdrawn on 29.05.2023.

8. It is submitted on behalf of the writ petitioner that no explanation has been offered by the respondents/ authorities as to what prevented them from withdrawal of the order of suspension immediately on payment of the penalty amount and the respondents/authorities have also not assigned any reason as to why they took seven months time for revocation of the order of suspension.

9. It is submitted further that on account of such delayed withdrawal of suspension order, the writ petitioner could not perform the excavation activity in terms of the said lease for a period of seven months and on account of such suffering, the writ petitioner approached the respondent no. 6/authority by submitting a representation, however, by issuing the order under challenge dated 19.09.2023 the respondent no. 6 most mechanically rejected the representation of the writ petitioner declining to extend the period of lease for seven months more.

10. It is further submitted on behalf of the writ petitioner that the order under challenge is per se illegal and perverse inasmuch as the respondent no. 6/authority by passing the said reasoned order dated 19.09.2023 has failed to visualize that on account of delay in revoking the suspension order of the writ petitioner, the writ petitioner could not extract sand from the leased out sand block for a period of seven months which tantamounts to double jeopardy which is violative of the constitutional provisions.

11. Per contra, Mr. Banerjee, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents/State and its functionaries at the very outset submits before this Court that from the materials as placed before this Court it would reveal that by paying off the penalty the writ petitioner has accepted the allegation of illegal sand mining. It is further argued by Mr. Banerjee that there is hardly any scope to interfere with the order under challenge inasmuch as the respondent no. 6/authority has rightly held