N.22Sl WPA 20934 of 2024

151/CL Dinabandhu Das Bairagya

08.09.2025 -vs-

SL-06 The State of West Bengal & Ors.

Ct.19 (S.R.) Ms. Pampa Dey (Dhaba)

Mr. Biswarup Chatterjee Ms. Sangita Banerjee … for the petitioner.

Sk. Md. Galibe … for the State.

Mr. Sanjay Saha Mr. Raju Mondal … for the respondent no.4.

1. At the very outset, it is required to be mentioned that the instant matter has been upgraded upon mentioning by the learned advocate for the writ petitioner stating extreme urgency.

2. On behalf of the respondent/State and its instrumentalities, a report dated 13.09.2024 as prepared by the respondent no.7/authority is filed and the same is taken on record.

3. On behalf of the respondent no.4/authority, a report in the form of an affidavit is also filed. The same is also taken on record.

4. 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.5/authority

commanding him to grant mining lease in favour of

the petitioner, being the partner of ‘Kalimata Sand Syndicate’ in respect of mouza-Ghordanga, J.L. No.29, Plot Nos.718, 719, 721, 739, 890, 912, 914, 923(P), Police Station – Patrasayer as per the Hon’ble High Court’s order in W.P. No.24482 (W) of 2012 by considering the representation dated

30.11.2021 made by the petitioner.

5. At the time of hearing, Ms. Dhabal, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner at the very outset draws attention of this Court to page nos.14 and 15 of the instant writ petition, being a copy of the application dated 24.06.2011, as submitted by the writ petitioner for grant of mining lease for mining minerals. Drawing attention to page nos.16 and 17 of the instant writ petition, it is further submitted by Ms. Dhabal that despite making such application and despite deposit of requisite fees, the respondent no.7/authority under cover of his memo dated 04.10.2012 rejected the writ petitioners’ application dated 24.06.2011 on some flimsy grounds.

6. At this stage, Ms. Dhabal took me to page nos.18 to

24 of the instant writ petition, being a copy of the order dated 04.01.2013, as passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in WP 24482 (W) of 2012. It is submitted by Ms. Dhabal that from the said order dated 04.01.2013, it would reveal that the said Coordinate Bench while disposing the said writ petition directed the respondent authorities to consider the writ petitioner’s application for grant of mining lease afresh in the light of the provisions of Rule 4A(3) of the West Bengal Minor Minerals Rules, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘said Rules of 2002’ in short).

7. It is further submitted by Ms. Dhabal that pursuant to such order dated 04.01.2013, the respondent no.5/authority by his order dated 06.08.2013, a copy of which has been enclosed at page no.30 of the instant writ petition, directed the respondentno.7/authority to issue provisional grant order in favour of the writ petitioner in terms of the said Rules of 2002 within a period of seven days. It is further submitted by Ms. Dhabal that it is the specific case of the writ petitioner that despite passing of the order dated 06.08.2013 by the respondent no.5/authority, the respondent no.7/authority practically did nothing and, thus, finding no other alternative, the writ petitioner under cover of his representation dated 30.11.2021, a copy of which has been annexed at page nos.50 and 51 of the instant writ petition, requested the respondent nos.5 and 7/authorities to grant mining lease in respect of the aforementioned plot of land in terms of the order dated 04.01.2013 as passed in WP No.24482 (W) of 2012 as mentioned in the forgoing paragraph.

8. It is, also submitted by Ms. Dhabal that despite receipt of the said representation dated 30.11.2021, the respondent authorities, more specifically, the respondent nos.5 and 7/authorities practically did nothing and, as such, there cannot be any predicament in granting relief