Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Cal) 127

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA, J.
Pal Enterprise - Appellant
Versus
The State of West Bengal and others - Respondent
WPA 28376 OF 2025
Decided On : 30-04-2026

Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioners:Mr. Ashoke Banerjee, Sr. Advocate Mr. Mir Anowar Advocates
For the State :Mr. Arka Kumar Nag, Mr. Manish Biswas, Mr. Sanjay Saha, Mr. Raju Mondal Advocates

An extension of a lease constitutes a prolongation of the existing tenure rather than a fresh grant. Consequently, restrictive policies governing lease renewals do not preclude a lessee from seeking an extension based on a force majeure clause where operational continuity was prevented by unavoidable administrative or pandemic-related disruptions.

Headnote:(A) Rules of Concession - Rule 51 - Mining Lease Contract - Force Majeure Clause - Meaning of "other happenings" - Distinction between "extension" and "renewal" - Extension of a lease is a prolongation of the original agreement, while renewal involves the creation of a new grant; restrictive policies governing the renewal of leases do not apply to claims for extension under a force majeure clause. (Paras 1, 18, 20-22)

(B) Appellate Authority - Scope of review - Failure to consider government office memoranda and binding precedents regarding pandemic-induced disruptions renders an appellate order perverse, necessitating reconsideration. (Paras 31-32)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a mining leaseholder, experienced significant work suspensions due to a road accident, local administrative restrictions on vehicle movement, and national lockdown protocols during a global pandemic. The petitioner sought an extension of the lease term by invoking the contractual force majeure clause. The authorities rejected the application, citing a policy that prevented the renewal of existing leases and the timing of the petitioner's representation.

Findings of Court:
The court observed that the petitioner prayed for an extension rather than a renewal. Consequently, policies prohibiting the renewal of leases were inapplicable. It was further held that pandemic-related lockdowns and severe restrictions on transportation could fall within the scope of "other happenings" as contemplated in the force majeure clause of the agreement.

Issues: The main issues were the legal distinction between the extension and renewal of a mining lease and whether pandemic-related operational inability qualified as a force majeure event under the specific terms of the lease agreement.

Ratio Decidendi: An extension of a lease merely prolongs the validity of the current tenure and does not constitute a fresh claim. Therefore, administrative mandates aimed at preventing lease renewals do not bar a lessee from invoking contractual protections for extensions when external circumstances, such as uncontrollable lockdowns or government-imposed restrictions, render performance of the contract impossible.

Result: Writ petition allowed; order of the appellate authority set aside and matter remitted for fresh adjudication.

Table of Content
1. factual history of mining lease, operational disruptions, and administrative appeals. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 10 , 11 , 15)
2. contentions regarding force majeure, policy applicability, and lease extension rights. (Para 6 , 7 , 8)
3. distinction between lease extension and renewal, and review of administrative procedural fairness. (Para 9 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 16 , 18 , 19 , 20)
4. non-obstante effect of lease clause rights over prospective administrative policy changes. (Para 21 , 22)
5. scope of 'force majeure' under contract law and applicability of government covid-19 relief mandates. (Para 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32)
6. remand of matter for fresh adjudication by appellate authority per established legal interpretation. (Para 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38)

Judgment :

Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, J.

1. Petitioner has challenged the order of the Commissioner, Burdwan Division dated 31.07.2025 passed in Appeal Case no. 53 of 2023 and the order of the Additional District Magistrate and District Land and Land Reforms Officer, Purba Bardhaman dated 10.05.2023.

2. Petitioner participated in an e-auction conducted on November 18, 2017 for grant of a sand mining lease in respect of a sand block situated at Mouza Shikarpur under Police Station Galsi in the district of Purba Bardhaman. Petitioner was declared as the highest bidder. A Letter of Intent (for short “LOI”) was issued in favour of the petitioner directing the petitioner to comply with all statutory formalities including Environmental clearances and approval of mining plan for the purpose of execution and registration of the long term mining lease. A long term mining lease dated February 27, 2018 was executed in favour of a petitioner for a period of five years and the lease deed was registered on March 6, 2018. Petitioner took possession of the sand block on March 7, 2018 and claims to have commenced mining operations after making payment of the requisite charges.

3. Petitioner states that an unprecedented road accident occurred on 1^st January 2020 at Simultala under Galsi Police Station which resulted in law and order problem and extraction of sand from the sand block in question had been unilaterally suspended by an order 02.01.2020. Thereafter, by order dated March 23, 2020 issued by the Block Land and Land Reforms Officer Galsi II, sand mining activities was suspended and such suspension was withdrawn with effect from 13.05.2020. In the meantime due to Covid 19 Pandemic, Lock down was imposed and the sand mining activities of the petitioner was totally stopped.

4. Petitioner states that for the reasons as aforesaid, the sand mining activities were totally stopped for nearly five months from 01.01.2020 to 13.05.2020. Petitioner further stated that the respondent authorities again directed stoppage of movement of sand loaded trucks through the road on account of construction of the road and for such reason the sand mining activities of the petitioner were stopped for a period of about 12 months on and from February, 2021 to 31^st January 2022. The petitioner states that the said restriction was further extended for a period of two more months till 7^th April 2022. Petitioner thereafter, submitted a representation dated 10.06.2022 before the respondent authorities praying for extension of the lease period. As the petitioner could not carry on the sand mining activities for reasons beyond the control of the petitioner lessee, a writ petition being WPA 14512 of 2022 was filed by the petitioner which was disposed of by a co-ordinate bench by an order dated 14.04.2023 by directing the 3rd respondent therein to consider and dispose of the representation of the petitioner by passing a reasoned order after affording an opportunity of hearing to all the affected parties including the petitioner. Pursuant to the aforesaid order passed by the co-ordinate bench, the Additional District Magistrate and District Land and Land Reforms Officer, Purba Bardhaman passed an