JUDGMENT :

PARTHA SARATHI SEN, J.

1. Since in the instant two writ petitions, identical reliefs have been prayed for by the writ petitioners, the instant two writ petitions have been tagged together in order to avoid repetition and also considering the fact that common questions of facts and laws are involved in the instant two writ petitions.

2. Since on behalf of the respondent/Corporation as well as on behalf of the respondent/State, a preliminary objection was raised on the point of maintainability of the instant two writ petitions, we, at the very outset, propose to deal with point of maintainability of the instant two writ petitions.

3. In course of his argument, Mr. Kar, learned senior advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent/Corporation in W.P.A. (P) 463 of 2025, at the very outset, took us to paragraph 1 of the said writ petition. It is argued that on perusal of paragraph 1 of W.P.A. (P) 463 of 2025, it would not reveal that the petitioner is engaged in what type of business and even in the affidavit of such writ petition, there was no disclosure as to whether the writ petitioner in W.P.A. (P) 463 of 2025 is at all dealing with sand mining or not.

4. It is further submitted by Mr. Kar that from the averments made in the writ petition being W.P.A. (P) 463 of 2025, prima facie there is no material to show that the writ petitioner is at all, a public spirited person and the proposed initiation of the said lis is at all bona fide.

5. It is further submitted by Mr. Kar that in absence of any disclosure of any civil/social consequences, the writ petition ought not to be entertained and the same may be dismissed at its threshold on the ground of maintainability.

6. It is further submitted by Mr. Kar, learned senior advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent/Corporation that the instant writ petition has been filed to stall a commercial contract , which is sought to be introduced by the Corporation with some check-point operators in terms of the Expression of Interest (EOI), which is in accordance with the provisions of Mines and Minerals (Development & Regulation) Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘said Act’ in short) vis-à-vis the West Bengal Sand (Mining, Transportation, Storage and Sales) Rules, 2021 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘said Rules’), vis-à- vis the Policy being West Bengal Sand Mining Policy, 2021 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘said Policy in short).

7. In his next limb of submission, Mr. Kar further contended that in an earlier round of litigation, a coordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.A. (P) 359 of 2025 (Pardarshita & Anr. vs. Union of India & Ors.) came to a finding that a writ petition of like nature is not maintainable. It is submitted that on perusal of the pleadings of the writ petition being W.P.A. (P) 463 of 2025, it would reveal that the instant writ petition is basically a proxy litigation and the writ petitioner has been set up by some persons, who have lost in the earlier round of litigation.

8. In course of his submission, Mr. Kar places reliance upon the reported decision of (2010) 3 SCC 402 (State of Uttaranchal vs. Balwant Singh Chaufal & Ors.). It is argued by Mr. Kar that in paragraph 181 of the reported decision of Balwant Singh (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has categorically issued guidelines in the form of directions upon the Courts for entertaining a writ petition, which is in the nature of public interest litigation. It is submitted by Mr. Kar that on perusal of the entire materials, as placed before this Court as well as from the materials, as available in the instant writ petition, it would reveal that the writ petitioner has miserably failed to fulfill the criteria as fixed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Balwant Singh (supra). It is, thus, submitted that W.P.A.(P) 463 of 2025 may be dismissed on the ground of maintainability.

9. Mr. Datta, learned Advocate General appearing on behalf of the respondent/State in both the writ petitions adopted the argumen