The renewal clause in a mining lease deed provides a vested right to renewal, independent of the rules' repeal, and the doctrine of frustration is not applicable to concluded transfers.

JUDGMENT :

Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.

1. The appellant applied for a mining lease for operating a black stonequarry under the West Bengal Minor Mineral Rules , 2002 (for short, “the 2002 Rules”), which was granted by an order dated March 7, 2013. Pursuant to the said grant order, a formal lease deed was executed in favour of the appellant on May 2, 2019 in the ModelForm prescribed under the 2002 Rules.

2. In the meantime, however, the West Bengal Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 2016 (in brief, “the 2016 Rules”) came into force. By dint of Rule 62(1) of the same, the 2002 Rules were repealed. However, sub-rule (2) of Rule 62 of the 2016 Rules comprised of a saving clause in respect of anything done, any action taken, or any prosecution started under the 2002 Rules, which were to be deemed to have been validly done or taken or started under the corresponding provisions of the 2016 Rules.

3. After the expiry of tenure of the lease of five years, an application for renewal of the same was made by the appellant in terms of the renewal clause in the lease deed. The same was refused vide order dated May 7, 2025 on the ground that the 2002 Rules had been repealed and there was no provision for renewal under the 2016 Rules.

4. Challenging the said refusal, W.P.A. No. 11263 of 2025 was preferred by the appellant, which having been dismissed by a learned Single Judge of this Court vide judgment dated July 3, 2025, the present appeal has been preferred.

5. Learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant argues that the right of one-time renewal of the mining lease accrued from the grant order dated March 7, 2013 and from the renewal clause in the lease deed dated May 2, 2019. Although the lease deed was executed during the 2016 Rules regime, the same was a follow-up of the grant order under the 2002 Rules and, as such, was saved by the provisions of Rules 62(2) of the 2016 Rules, read with Section 6 of the General Clauses Act , 1897 (hereinafter referred to as “the 1897 Act”).

6. It is argued that the renewal clause in the lease deed is self-sufficient for effecting one-time renewal at the option of the lessee and operates despite the repeal of the 2002 Rules. It is contended that the renewal clause confers the right of renewal in favour of the appellant “in accordance with” Rule 12 of the 2002 Rules, and not “under” Rule 12. Hence, the right of renewal flows from the lease deed itself and not from the repealed Rule 12. Thus, it is contended that the refusal to renew the lease on the ground that the 2002 Rules had been repealed was unlawful.

7. Learned senior counsel next contends that Rule 36 of the 2016 Rules also protects the rights accrued under mining leases. It is argued that the expression “mining lease” used in Rule 36 has to be read in the context of the definition of “mining lease” in Section 3(c) of the parent Act, that is, the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act , 1957 (for short, “the 1957 Act”) and includes all leases undertaken for mining purpose, irrespective of whether under the 2002 Rules or the 2016 Rules. It is pointed out that Chapter IV (Rules 21 onwards) of the 2016 Rules deals with “lease”, which has been defined to be a mining lease under the 2016 Rules. However, Rule 36, as contradistinct from “lease”, uses the expressi