Form No.J(2)

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

Civil Appellate Jurisdiction

Appellate Side

Present : The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya

&

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Uday Kumar

FMA No. 152 of 2018

Nitya Nanda Pal

-vs-

District Magistrate, Purba Bardhaman and others

For the appellant : Mr. Piyush Chaturvedi, Ld. Sr. Adv.,

Mr. Mir Anwar.

For the respondents : Mr. Tulshi Das Ray.

Heard on : August 18, 2025 & August 19, 2025.

Judgment on : August 19, 2025.

Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.:

1. The present challenge arises out of an order dated August 29,

2017 passed in WPA No. 8784(W) of 2017.

2. By the said order, the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ

petition of the present appellant, which was filed seeking a consideration of the appellant’s application for renewal of a

mining lease given in favour of the petitioner under the West Bengal Minor Minerals Rules, 2002 (in brief, “2002 Rules”).

3. While dismissing the writ petition, the learned Single Judge observed that there was nothing on record to indicate that the petitioner had deposited the requisite fees of Rs.500/- with the District Magistrate, Burdwan for consideration of the application submitted by the petitioner under the provisions of Rule 12(1) of the 2002 Rules. That apart, the learned Single Judge held that the said application for renewal made by the petitioner under the old Rules of 2002 was no longer maintainable since the said Rules have been repealed by Rules 61 and 62 of the West Bengal Minor Minerals Concessions Rules, 2016 (for short, “2016 Rules”) which had come into force prior to the renewal application being made by the writ petitioner/present appellant.

4. Learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant argues that the reliance of the learned Single Judge, inter alia, on Rule 61 of the 2016 Rules was misplaced, inasmuch as the said provision contemplates original applications for grant of mining lease and not renewal applications in respect of pre-existing leases.

5. Learned senior counsel places particular reliance on Rule 12 of the 2002 Rules, which provides for renewal of mining lease.

6. Rule 8(2) of the 2002 Rules categorically provides that an application for grant or renewal of mining lease shall not be refused by the State Government or the Officers so authorized by it only on the ground that the application is not complete in all respects or is not accompanied by the required documents.

7. Learned senior counsel contends that the appropriate governing provision of the 2016 Rules would not be Rule 61 thereof but Rule 62. Rule 62(1) of the 2016 Rules provides that the 2002 Rules were repealed. However, sub-Rule (2) of Rule 62, which starts with a non obstante clause, provides that anything done, any application taken or any prosecution started under the 2002 Rules would be deemed to have been validly done or taken or started as the case may be under the corresponding provisions of those Rules.

8. It is argued that since the mining lease was granted to the petitioner/appellant under the 2002 Rules and itself contains a renewal clause, the said grant of lease, including the renewal clause therein, came within the purview of “anything done” and “any action taken” under the 2002 Rules and, thus, were saved by Rule 62(2) of the 2016 Rules.

9. Learned senior counsel argues that in view of Rule 8(2) of the

2002 Rules, the mere technicality of non deposit of Rs.500/-

would not vitiate the renewal application itself.

10. However, learned senior counsel also submits that, in the present case, there was no occasion for the learned Single Judge to come to the finding that the petitioner had not deposited the requisite fees.

11. It is contended that the learned Single Judge pre-judged the issue, since at the threshold, even before direction of affidavits, the writ petition was dismissed on the assumption that there was no document which was annexed to the writ petition to show that the requisite fees were deposited.

12. Learned Senior counsel places reliance on paragraph 6 of the