S/L 8

28.04.2025 Court. No. 19 Sourav WPA 19194 of 2024 Md. Ajim Khan @ Md. AJim Ali Khan Vs.

The State of West Bengal & Ors.

Mr. Sukanta Chakrabarty Mr. Siddhartha Banerjee Mr. Soumya Kanti Sinha Ms. Suparna Das Mr. Anindya Halder … for the petitioner.

Mr. Chandi Charan De, Ld. AGP Mr. Anirban Sarkar … for the State.

Mr. Sanjay Saha Mr. Raju Mondal … for the respondent no. 5.

1. The supplementary affidavit as filed in Court today on behalf of the writ petitioner is taken on record.

2. In this third round of litigation, the writ petitioner has prayed for issuance of appropriate writ/writs against the respondents/authorities for setting aside and/or quashing the order dated 15.02.2024 as passed by the respondent no. 3 whereby and whereunder the said respondent no. 3 while considering the representation of the writ petitioner pursuant to a judgment and order dated 06.12.2023 in WPA 16343 of 2022 as passed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court found no merit in such representation and thus, the prayer of the writ petitioner for execution of the lease deed pursuant to grant of long term mining lease and LOI as issued on

30.11.2005 was rejected.

3. In course of hearing, Mr. Chakrabarty, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner at the very outset draws attention of this Court to the order under challenge as passed by the respondent no. 3. It is submitted by Mr. Chakrabarty that the said respondent no. 3 has mechanically passed the said order under challenge without considering the true spirit of the representation dated 03.07.2021 as submitted by the writ petitioner and without giving any adherence to the judgment and order dated 06.12.2023 as passed by a co-ordinate Bench in WPA 16343 of 2022. Mr. Chakrabarty further submits that in the said judgment and order dated 06.12.2023, the co-ordinate Bench though recorded that the writ petitioner has submitted all the documents as called for by the authority while issuing the said grant order dated 30.11.2005 and despite such findings, the respondent no. 3 took a contrary view which is practically a replica of an earlier order which was under challenge in the earlier round of litigation i.e., WPA 16343 of 2022.

4. In course of hearing, attention of this Court is drawn to page no. 64 of the instant writ petition being a copy of the list of documents as submitted by the writ petitioner with the respondents/authorities. It is submitted that from the said copy of the list of documents, it would reveal that the writ petitioner has submitted ten documents which has been overlooked by the respondent no. 3/authority while passing the order under challenge. It is further submitted by Mr. Chakrabarty that while passing the order under challenge, the respondent no. 3 has also failed to visualize the true spirit and purport of the provision of Section 61 of the West Bengal Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the said Rules of 2016’ in short) as well as Rule 34 of the West Bengal Sand (Mining Transportation Storage and Sale) Rules, 2021 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the said Rules of 2021’ in short).

5. It is submitted that Section 61 of the said Rules of 2016 and Rule 34 of the said Rules of 2021 clearly envisage that where the applicant was issued a grant order or LOI under West Bengal Minor Minerals Rules, 2002 (hereinafter referred to ‘as the said Rules of 2002’ in short), the repealing of the said Rules of 2002 and the said Rules of 2016 cannot have any adverse effect on such grant and the pending application for mining lease can still be considered in accordance with the said Rules of 2002 or under Rules of 2016 subject to due compliance of the necessary conditions. It is thus submitted by Mr. Chakrabarty that the order under challenge as passed on 15.02.2024 is perverse and, therefore, appropriate relief or reliefs may be granted to the writ petitioner.

6. Per contra, Mr. De, learned AGP appearing for the respondent/State and its functionaries and Mr. Saha,