Form J(2) v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL & Ors.

2. At the time of hearing, Mr. Bhattacharjee, learned senior advocate appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner, at the very outset draws attention of this Court to the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to ‘Act of 1957’ in short). Drawing attention to the preamble of the Act of 1957 as well as section 15 and 23C of the Act of 1957, it is submitted that from the preamble of the Act of 1957 it would reveal that it is a Central Act which has been enacted for the development and regulation of mines and minerals. It is further submitted that section 15 of the Act of 1957 empowered the State to make rules in respect of minor minerals, more specifically, regarding making of rules for regulating the grant of quarry leases, mining leases or other mineral concessions in respect of minor minerals. It is submitted on behalf of the writ petitioner that the legislatures in their own wisdom have not permitted the State Government to make rules regarding sale of its minor minerals. Drawing attention to section 23C of the Act of 1957, it is further argued by Mr. Bhattacharjee that by the Act of 1957 the State Government was further empowered to make rules for preventing illegal mining, transportation and storage of minerals wherein the word ‘sale’ has been consciously and expressly omitted.

3. In his next limb of submission Mr. Bhattacharjee, learned senior advocate appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner, draws attention of this Court to the West Bengal Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 2016 (‘Rules of 2016’ in short). Attention of this Court has been drawn to Rule 5 which deals with the period of lease, Rule 38 which deals with grant of prospecting licence-cum-mining lease or mining lease for exploitation of minor minerals and Rule 43 which deals with the subject of grant of short-term mining licence of riverbed occurrences. It is submitted on behalf of the writ petitioner that from page-74 of the instant writ petition it would reveal that the writ petitioner approached the respondent authorities by invoking Rule 43 of the Rules of 2016.

4. At this juncture, learned senior advocate for the writ petitioner took me to West Bengal Sand (Mining, Transportation, Storage and Sale) Rules, 2021 (‘Rules of 2021’ in short). It is submitted that on perusal of the said Rules of 2021 it would reveal that in the said Rules there is no provision indicating that with the implementation of 2021 Rules, 2016 Rules have been repealed. Drawing further attention of this Court to Rule 4 of the Rules of 2021 it is further submitted that the said Rule prescribes that the sand mining would be done under sand mining lease.

5. At this stage, learned senior advocate for the writ petitioner, took me to page-61 of the instant writ petition being a copy of Memorandum dated

23.12.2025 whereby and whereunder the Respondent No.2 authority by a non-speaking order rejected the writ petitioner’s application dated

03.04.2025 for grant of short-term lease. It is submitted that the said Memorandum dated 23.12.2025 was challenged by filing a writ petition being WPA 3056 of 2026 which came to be disposed of before a co- ordinate Bench of this Court on 17.02.2026. It is submitted that the said co-ordinate Bench by its order dated 17.02.2026 set aside the said impugned Memo dated 23.12.2025 with a direction to the Respondent No.2 authority to pass a reasoned order after affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the writ petitioner.

6. Drawing attention to the impugned reasoned order, a copy of which has been annexed at page-114 to 118 of the instant writ petition, it is argued that the reason assigned by the Respondent No.2 authority, while passing the said reasoned order and while rejecting the application for short-term mining lease, is not tenable in the eye of law in view of the fact that the said Respondent No.2 authority has failed to visualise Rule 3 of the Rules of 2021 in its proper perspective. It is further submitted that in paragraph-12 onwards of the impugned reasoned order, the Respondent No.2 authority most mechanically and without assigning any reason came to a finding that the writ petitioner has miserably failed to substantiate the exceptional circumstances for grant of short-term mining lease in terms of the provision of Rule 43(1) of the Rules of 2016.

7. In support of his contention, Mr. Bhattacharjee, learned senior advocate appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner places his reliance upon a judgment passed in the case of Kerala State Electricity Board & Ors. vs. Thomas Joseph @ Thomas M.J. & Ors., reported in 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 1034. It is, thus, submitted by Mr. Bhattacharjee that it is a fit case for setting aside the impugned order dated 29.04.2026 and to grant relief/reliefs to the writ petitioner in terms of the prayers made in the instant writ petition.

8. Per contra, Mr. Nilanjan Bhattacharjee, learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent-State and duly assisted by Mr. Pal submits before this Court that the Respondent No.2 authority rightly passed the reasoned order dated 29.04.2026 keeping in mind the Rule 3 of the Rules 2021 vis-à-vis the exceptional clauses as mentioned in Rule 43(1) of the Rules of 2016.

9. This Court has meticulously perused the entire materials as placed before this Court. This Court has given its due consideration over the submissions of the learned senior advocates appearing on behalf of the contending parties.

10. From the materials as placed before this Court it reveals that admittedly the writ petitioner approached the Respondent No.2 authority on

03.04.2025 with a request to grant short-term mining lease in terms of the provision of Rule 43(1) of Rules 2016. At this juncture, if I look to the Rules of 2021, it reveals that the Rules of 2021 was brought into effect by Gazette Notification dated 25.01.2022 as published on

31.01.2022. Such being the position, this Court has got no hesitation to hold that the writ petitioner’s application for grant of mining lease was submitted after bringing into effect of Rules of 2021.

11. At this stage, this Court proposes to look to the Rule 3 of the Rules of 2021 which is quoted hereinbelow in verbatim:- regulating and monitoring “3. Applicability of these Rules.- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the West Bengal Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2016, West Bengal Minor Minerals (Auction) Rules, 2016, West Bengal Minerals (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation and Storage) Rule, 2002 or any other rule for the time being in force in the State of West Bengal, from the date of commencement of these rules, these rules shall be applicable for: (i) carrying out sand mining operations; (ii) operations; (iii) prevention of illegal sand mining operations; and (iv) for purposes connected therewith. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in the West Bengal Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2016, West Bengal Minor Minerals (Auction) Rules, 2016, West Bengal (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation and Storage) Rule, 2002 or any other rule for the time being in force in the State of West Bengal, and terms and conditions of any lease for mining commencement of these rules, unless otherwise explicitly stated in these rules, and subject to such conditions as provided in these rules, pro-visions of these rules shall be applicable to: sand mining immediately Minerals sand, (i) such persons holding leases for mining river sand from before the commencement of these rules; and (ii) such persons carrying out sand mining operations from before the commencement of these rules.”

12. On careful perusal of Rule 3 of the said Rules of 2021 it appears to this Court that by way of the said subordinate legislation it has been indicated that notwithstanding anything contained in the Rules of 2016 and the other Rules as mentioned therein, the Rules 2021 shall be applicable for carrying out sand mining operations, regulating and monitoring sand mining operations, prevention of illegal sand mining operations and for purposes connected therewith. At this juncture, if we look to Rule 43(1) of the Rules of 2016 which deals with the grant of short-term minor lease of riverbed occurrences, it appears to this Court that with the introduction of Rules 2021, the Rules regarding grant of mining lease, whether short-term or long-term, will be governed under the Rules of 2021.

13. Though in course of his argument learned senior advocate for the writ petitioner challenges the provision of Rule 3 of the Rules of 2021, however, on being asked more than one occasion it has been candidly submitted before this Court that the present writ petitioner has not challenged the vires of the Rule of 2021. On the contrary, it has been argued on behalf of the writ petitioner that in absence of any repeal clause in the Rules of 2021, there cannot be any occasion to hold that the Rules of 2016 becomes inapplicable.

14. With deepest respect to the learned senior advocate for the writ petitioner such an argument as advanced on behalf of the writ petitioner is not at all tenable in view of the specific provision of Rule 3 of the Rules of 2021. In considered view of this Court in the event, Rule 3 of the Rules of 2021 is viewed in its proper perspective and in absence of any glaring illegality and/or perversity in the order impugned there is hardly any scope to interfere with such administrative decision. In course of his submission, learned senior advocate for the writ petitioner also submitted that the decision of the Respondent No.2 authority is arbitrary in nature since on an earlier occasion the selfsame Respondent No.2 authority rejected the writ petitioner’s application for grant of short-term mining lease with no reason and while passing the impugned order dated 29.04.2026, such arbitrariness on the part of the Respondent No.2 is equally prominent.

15. In order to ascertain whether the action of the Respondent No.2 authority while passing the order impugned is at all arbitrary or not, this Court intends to place its reliance upon the reported decision in the case of Subodh Kumar Singh Rathour Vs. Chief Executive Officer AIR 2024 SC 3784, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court had an occasion to decide the parameter for ascertaining whether an administrative act is arbitrary or not and in doing so, Hon’ble Court held thus:- If not, “69. To ascertain whether an act is arbitrary or not, the court must carefully attend to the facts and the circumstances of the case. It should find out whether the impugned decision is based it may unerringly point to on any principle. arbitrariness. If the act betrays caprice or the mere exhibition of the whim of the authority it would sufficiently bear the insignia of arbitrariness. In this regard supporting an order with a rationale which in the circumstances is found to be reasonable will go a long way to repel a challenge to State action. No doubt the reasons need not in every case be part of the order as such. If there is absence of good faith and the action is actuated with an oblique motive, it could be characterised as being arbitrary. A total non-application of mind without due regard to the rights of the parties and public interest may be a clear indicator of arbitrary action.”

16. Keeping in mind the proposition of law as decided in the Subodh Kumar Singh Rathour (supra), if I look to factual aspects as involved in the instant writ petition it appears to this Court, the Respondent No.2 authority while passing the order impugned has assigned sufficient reason for not entertaining the writ petitioner’s application for grant of short-term mining lease by quoting the relevant provisions of Rules and also by saying as to why the relevant provision of the earlier Rule (Rules 2016) is not applicable. It, thus, appears to this Court that the order impugned is well-reasoned and does not indicate any arbitrary act on the part of the Respondent No.2 authority as wrongly alleged.

17. With the aforementioned findings, the instant writ petition is dismissed.

18. There shall be, however, no order as to costs. (PARTHA SARATHI SEN, J.) Saikat Mukherjee(AR.CT.)