In the High Court at Calcutta

Civil Appellate Jurisdiction

Appellate Side

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya

And

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Uday Kumar

FMA. No. 1230 of 2025

+

CAN 1 of 2025

Sabina Yesmin Begum

– Versus –

The State of West Bengal and Others

For the appellants : Mr. Piyush Chaturvedi, Sr. Adv.,

Mr. Mir Anowar

For the State : Mr. Soumitra Bandyopadhyay, Sr. Adv.,

Mr. Priyabrata Batabyal

For the respondent no. 6: Mr. Sanjay Saha,

Mr. Raju Mondal

Heard & Reserved on : 16.09.2025 Judgment on : 24.09.2025

Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.:-

1. The appellant was granted a long-term mining lease on May 16, 2008

(registered on July 3, 2008) under the provisions of the West Bengal

Minor Mineral Rules, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as “the 2002 Rules”) for extracting sand from the concerned plot vide Deed No. 446, by the Government of West Bengal, through the Governor. Subsequently, in terms of the renewal clause of the lease, that is, Clause 3 thereof, the petitioner made an application in appropriate format for renewal of the said mining lease. By an order dated November 2, 2012, the Additional District Magistrate-cum-DL & LRO, Burdwan rejected the said application on the ground that vide Notification No. 809/CI/0/MM- 84/11 dated December 1, 2011, Rules 5 to 16 of the 2002 Rules had been amended with effect from December 5, 2011, thereby introducing a total change in the procedure for grant of mining lease in respect of river-bed materials.

2. Such rejection order was challenged by the writ petitioner by filing a writ petition bearing WP No. 24961 (W) of 2012. A learned Single Judge of this Bench, vide judgment dated July 24, 2023, set aside the said order of rejection, directing the DL & LRO to consider and dispose of the petitioner’s application for renewal of mining lease in accordance with Rule 12 of the 2002 Rules. While disposing of the writ petition, the learned Single Judge observed, inter alia, that the vires of the amended provisions of Rules 5 to 16 of the 2002 Rules was challenged before a Division Bench of this Court in WP No. 16526 (W) of 2013, where, by a judgment dated July 4, 2014, the said Division Bench was pleased to hold that the impugned decision taken by the concerned authority refusing to grant renewal of lease was illegal and liable to be set aside. On such premise, the learned Single Judge passed the order dated July 24, 2023.

3. Subsequently, upon reconsideration pursuant to the order of the learned Single Judge, the DL & LRO again rejected the said application for renewal vide Order No. 5 dated September 19, 2023, this time on the ground that the West Bengal Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2016 (for short, “the 2016 Rules”) as well as the West Bengal Sand (Mining, Transportation, Storage and Sale) Rules, 2021 (in brief, “the 2021 Rules”) had come into force, none of which had provisions for extension/renewal of sand mining leases. As per Rule 13 of the 2016 Rules and Rule 4 of the 2021 Rules, there had to be an auction process for grant of sand mining leases.

4. The said order was challenged in WPA No. 26226 of 2023 by the petitioner. Vide judgment dated May 6, 2025, a learned Single Judge of this Court dismissed the writ petition, thereby confirming the order of rejection on the premise that in view of the new regime introduced by the 2016 Rules, there was no provision for renewal of lease.

5. Being aggrieved by the said order, the present appeal has been preferred.

6. Learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant contends that under Rule 62 of the 2016 Rules, although the 2002 Rules had been repealed, anything done, any action taken or any prosecution started under the 2002 Rules were protected, deeming them to have been done validly under the corresponding provisions of the 2016 Rules.

7. Moreover, it is argued that Clause 3 of the lease deed itself contained a renewal clause, on the strength of which a right had accrued in favour of the writ petitioner for having a renewal once, for the period as specifi