Writ petition dismissed as application for renewal of mining lease was properly denied under relevant legislative rules due to lack of actionable provisions.

PARTHA SARATHI SEN, J. : –

1. The affidavit of service as filed today on behalf of the writ petitioner is taken on record.

2. The writ petitioner and the respondents State are represented by their respective learned advocates.

3. By filing the instant writ petition, the writ petitioner has prayed for issuance of appropriate writ/writs against the respondent authorities, more specifically against the respondent no.2 for quashing and/or setting aside the order dated 07.05.2025 whereby and whereunder the writ petitioner’s application for renewal of the period of lease was not considered favourably.

4. In course 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.36 of the instant writ petition being a copy of the grant of long term mining lease dated 07.03.2013 as granted in favour of the writ petitioner.

5. Drawing attention to page no.46 of the instant writ petition, it is submitted by Mr. Bandyopadhyay that such lease deed dated 02.05.2019 was executed in favour of the writ petitioner for quarry of black stone from the relevant plot. It is submitted by Mr. Bandyopadhyay that Clause 3 of Part VIII of the said deed of lease contains ‘renewal clause’ for one period not exceeding the period of the original lease. Drawing attention to page no.158 of the instant writ petition, it is further submitted on behalf of the writ petitioner that on 30.10.2023, the writ petitioner submitted an application for grant of renewal, however, on account of relactance of the respondent authorities to consider such application, the writ petitioner had to approach before this court in an earlier round of litigation.

6. From page nos.184 to 185 of the instant writ petition being a copy of the judgment and order dated 22.05.2024 as passed by a Co- ordinate Bench of this court in WPA 11074 of 2024, it reveals that the said court granted an extension of lease period for a period of six months, considering the application for renewal of mining lease as has been submitted by the writ petitioner was not disposed of.

7. It is submitted by Mr. Bandyopadhyay that the respondent authorities more specifically respondent no.2/authority while passing the reasoned order under challenge dated 07.05.2025, though placed reliance upon Rules 61 and 62 of the West Bengal Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules of 2016’ in short), the said respondent no.2/authority has failed to visualize the true spirit of Rule 11 and Rule 12 of the West Bengal Minor Minerals Rules, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the said Rules of 2002’, for short), in its proper perspective as well as the ‘clause of renewal’ as exists in the deed of lease dated 02.05.2019.

8. It is further submitted by Mr. Bandyopadhyay that the respondent no.2/authority has also failed to visualize the true implications of Section 6 (c) of the General Clauses Act, 1897 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the said Act of 1897’, in short). It is submitted by Mr. Bandyopadhyay that it is a fit case to quash the order under challenge.

9. Such contention is however opposed by Mr. De, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondent State and its functionaries.

10. This court has meticulously perused the entire materials as placed by the parties. This court has given its due consideration over the submissions of the learned advocates for the contending parties.

11. For effective adjudication of the instant lis, this court at the very outset proposes to look to Rule 61 and Rule 62 of the said Rules of

2016, which are quoted hereinbelow in verbatim:

“61. Decl