Judgment :

Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, J.

1. Petitioner has prayed for setting aside the order dated September, 12, 2025 passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Paschim Medinipur and for a direction upon the respondent authorities for grant of the Long Term Mining Lease to the petitioner in terms of the application dated March 5, 2013.

2. The petitioner claims to have submitted applications on March 5, 2013 for grant of a Long Term Mining Lease for sand over Mouzas Deulpara, Tashuli and Khapara. The said applications were rejected by the Additional District Magistrate and the District Land and Land Reforms Officer being the fourth respondent by an order vide memo dated 08.05.2013. Petitioner claims that on November 10, 2020 he came to learn that Long Term Mining Lease had been issued in favour of the private respondent and immediately thereafter petitioner submitted a representation dated January 05, 2021 before the concerned District Magistrate.

3. Alleging inaction on the part of the respondent authorities’ in not considering the prayer of the petitioner for grant of Long Term Mining Lease, petitioner filed a writ petition being WPA 15114 of 2021 inter alia praying for cancellation of the mining lease granted in favour of the private respondent. Pursuant to an order dated February 18, 2022 passed in WPA 15114 of 2021, the concerned District Magistrate passed an order dated 21.04.2022 thereby rejecting the prayer of the petitioners contained in the representation dated January 5, 2021. Petitioner challenged the order of the District Magistrate dated 21.04.2022 before the Divisional Commissioner Medinipur Division which was registered as Appeal Case no. 25 of 2024. The said appeal was dismissed by the Divisional Commissioner by an order dated 12^th of September, 2025.

4. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated September 12, 2025 passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Medinipur Division, petitioner has approached this court.

5. Mr. Chaturvedi Learned Senior Advocate appearing in support of the writ petition contended that the applications of the petitioner for grant of Long Term Mining Lease of sand were rejected by the concerned Additional District Magistrate by invoking the amended provisions of the 2002 Rules which became effective from December 05, 2011. He contended that the amended provision of the West Bengal Minor Mineral Rules 2002 which were introduced in the year 2011 were declared as ultra vires by the Hon’ble Division Bench in the case of Swapan Sarkar Vs. State of West Bengal and others reported in 2014 SCC online CAL 13995 and, therefore, the order of rejection of the petitioner’s applications cannot be sustained.

6. Mr. Chatruvedi further contended that Rule 61 of the West Bengal Minor Mineral Concessions Rules 2016 enables the authority to consider and take a fresh decision on the application filed by the petitioner on 5^th March, 2013 for grant of Long Term Mining Lease for sand. He contended that the District Magistrate failed to consider the effect of Rule 61 of the 2016 Rules and rejected the prayer made by the petitioner for grant of Long Term Mining Lease by applying the provisions of Rule 62 of the 2016 Rules which deals with the repeal of the West Bengal Minor Mineral Rules 2002. Mr. Chaturvedi further contended that the petitioner approached Divisional Commissioner under Rule 51 of the 2016 Rules under a misconception of the provision regarding appeal remedy. He submitted that since the order of the District Magistrate which was impugned before the Divisional Commissioner was not passed in exercise of the powers conferred upon the District Magistrate under the 2016 Rules, no appeal would lie under Rule 51 of the 2016 Rules. Mr. Chaturvedi thus, contended that the order of the Divisional Commissioner is a nullity in the eyes of law.

7. Mr. Chaturvedi, learned Senior Advocate places reliance upon a judgment passed by the Hon’ble Division Bench on September 24, 2025 in FMA No. 1230 of 2025 and CAN 1 of 2025 in the