CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION v. THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL & Ors.

is vehemently opposed by Ms. Dhar Chakraborty, learned advocate led by Mr. D.N. Ray, learned Government Pleader.

4. Such being the position, this Court considers that in the event of an alleged violation of the order of the Court the present petitioner has his remedy in an appropriate forum and, therefore, this Court thinks it fit and proper not to make any observation with regard to the allegation as highlighted on behalf of the writ petitioner at this stage.

5. At the time of hearing both Mr. Ray, learned GP appearing for the State and Mr. Saha, learned appearing for the respondent corporation submit before this Court that they would make 3 verbal submission before this Court instead of filing any report as called for.

6. In view of such, the instant writ petition is taken up for hearing finally on consent of all the parties.

7. The subject matter of the instant writ petition is the memo dated 10.07.2026, a copy of which has been annexed at page no.105 of the instant writ petition, being a Notice Inviting Application for e-auction of seized stock of sand (‘NIA’ in short).

8. At the time of hearing Mr. Samim at the very outset draws attention of this Court to page nos.23-66 of the instant writ petition, being the copy of a registered deed of lease dated

4.8.2025, as has been executed by and between the respondent State (lessor) and the present petitioner (lessee) for excavation of sand from the plot of land, being plot no.1321(P) measuring about 3.62 acres, JL no.97 in Mouza- Girajpur, under PS- Md. Bazar, District- Birbhum. Undisputedly, the period of the said lease was for a period of 5 years.

9. Sub-clause (b) of Clause 3 of Part VII of the said deed of lease is very much relevant for the purpose of disposal of the 4 instant writ petition and, thus, this Court proposes to quote the said Clause (b) in verbatim and the same is under:- “The lessee shall extract and despatch minimum 31,002cubit metres of Sand in the first year and thereafter 23,043 cubic meter of Sand each in the subsequent four years from the leasehold area.”

10. In course of his submission Mr. Samim further draws attention of this Court to page 97 of the instant writ petition, being a copy of the order dated 29.05.2025 as issued by the Additional Secretary to the Government of West Bengal, Department of Industry, Commerce and Enterprises Mines Branch. This Court also proposes to quote the relevant portion of the said order dated 29.05.2025 in verbatim and those are as under. “……………………………………………... AND WHEREAS, it has been reported by districts that during measurement of monsoon stocks by field level officials, it is noticed that some excess quantity of sand stock is found over the permissible and declared limit, ……………………………………………… AND WHEREAS, vide notification bearing no. 920 - M&M / I.R./ A-II/M&M-8/2014 dated 23.03.2018 issued from the end of Department of L&LR & RR&R, it was fixed that price equivalent to 1.5 times the royalty 5 shall be collected for disposal of any minor mineral(s) extracted without any lawful authority, ……………………………………………...”

11. Placing reliance upon the said order dated 29.05.2025 it is argued by Mr. Samim that the said order dated 29.05.2025 clearly specifies that in the event the respondent/State authority noticed through field level officials that some excess quantity of sand stock has been deposited by the lessee during the monsoon period, the said authority shall collect the price equivalent to 1.5 times royalty for disposal of the said excess minor mineral as has been extracted without any authority.

12. It is submitted by Mr. Samim that from page nos.98 to 103 of the instant writ petition it would reveal that the said authority found 15,85,200 cubic feet of sand for which the writ petitioner approached the respondent authorities to allow him to dispose of the said excess petty stock in terms of the said order dated 29.05.2025.

13. Placing reliance upon page nos.97 to 103 of the instant writ petition it is submitted by Mr. Samim that the writ petitioner requested the respondents authorites to allow him to dispose 6 the petty excess quantity of sand in terms of the said order dated 29.05.2025, however, the respondent authorities, more specifically the respondent no.6 authority, without following the procedure of law and without giving due adherence to the said order dated 29.05.2025 proceeded for e-auction of the alleged excess stock which is not permissible in the eye of law. In order to substantiate his contention Mr. Samim took me to page no.113 of the instant writ petition, being a copy of the memo dated 10.07.2026 as issued by the Additional District Magistrate and DL & LRO, Purba Bardhaman whereby and whereunder in a similar situation the said authority instead of opting for NIA acted in accordance with the order dated

29.05.2025 thereby permitting the lessee to dispose of the excess stock of sand by deposit of requisite fees in terms of the said order dated 29.05.2025.

14. It is, thus, submitted by Mr. Samim that the alleged action of the respondent no.6 authority herein is violative of the principle of Article 14 of the Constitution of India vis-à-vis contrary to the established rules of procedure and, therefore, the same is required to be interfered with in judicial review. Mr. Samim, thus, submitted that it is a fit case for granting 7 relief or reliefs to the writ petitioner in terms of the prayer/prayers as made in the instant writ petition.

15. Per contra, Mr. Saha, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent corporation in course of his submission also places his reliance upon the aforementioned order dated

29.05.2025. It is argued by Mr. Saha that the said order dated 29.05.2025 is restricted to monsoon stock only and in the event it is found that some excess quantity of sand stock has been made, recourse to the said order 29.05.2025 by payment of requisite fees is permissible.

16. At this juncture, Mr. Saha also took me to sub-clause (b) of Clause 3 of Part VII of the said registered deed of lease, which has been quoted supra. It is submitted that from the said clause of the said registered deed of lease it would reveal that the permissible limit for extraction of sand from the relevant plot of land in the first year is 31,002 cubic metre, which is equivalent to 10,94,825.3 cubit feet. Attention of this Court is also drawn to the page no.81 of the instant writ petition, being the part and parcel of the environmental clearance as issued by SEIAA. It is submitted by Mr. Saha that from the said environmental clearance it would again reveal that in the 8 first year the annual production of the lessee, who is the writ petitioner herein, would be 31,002 cubic meter equivalent to 10,94,825.3 cubic feet. It is submitted by Mr. Saha that the writ petitioner’s case is not a case of excess stock during the period of monsoon and on the contrary it is a case of excess excavation at the instance of the writ petitioner from the leased out plot of land.

17. It is, thus, submitted by Mr. Saha that for violation of the terms and conditions of the said deed of lease and for the violation of parameters as given in the environmental clearance by SEIAA, the respondent/State authority rightly invoked its power under West Bengal Sand (Mining, Transportation, Search and Sale) Rules 2021 (in short “Rules of 2021’). It is argued by Mr. Saha that for violating the relevant provisions of the said Rules of 2021 seizure has been made in a criminal proceeding against the present petitioner and soon thereafter the impugned NIA for e-auction has been issued.

18. In his next limb of submission Mr. Saha places his reliance upon a judgment dated 10.08.2023 as passed in MAT 1472 of 2023 (State of West Bengal & Ors. Vs. Ma Sarada 9 Enterprise) by a Division Bench of this Court. It is submitted that in an identical case the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court declined to interfere with the same nature of NIA by holding that the procedure adopted by the respondent/State is in accordance with law.

19. It is, thus, submitted by Mr. Saha that the instant writ petition is devoid of any merit and is liable to be dismissed.

20. Mr. Ray, learned Government Pleader duly assisted by Mrs. Jayita Dhar Chakraborty, learned advocate for the State adopted the argument of Mr. Saha. Mr. Ray also submits that it is a fit case for dismissal of the writ petition.

21. For effective adjudication of the instant writ petition, this Court, at the very outset, proposes to look to Chapter – VI of the Rules of 2021, which deals with ‘prevention of illegal sand mining operations’. Rule 20 of Chapter – VI of the Rules of 2021 deals with the powers of the District Level Sand Committee and the State Level Sand Committee, which includes the power to regulate and supervise sand mining operations, enter and inspect, to take such actions for prevention of illegal sand mining and direct authorized officer to take such steps as required for exercise of its powers under 10 the said Sub-Rule. Rule 20 of the said Rules of 2021, in considered view of this Court, is very much pertinent and accordingly, the said Rule of the Rules of 2025 is quoted below in verbatim:- “20. Powers of District Level Sand Committee and State Level Sand Committee- (1) The District Level Sand Committee may either suo motu or upon intimation by State Government and/or West Bengal Mineral Development & Trading Corporation Limited, have the powers in the respective districts, to: (i)…… (ii)…… (iii)…… (iv)….. (v)….. (vi)…. (vii) take such actions as required for prevention of illegal sand mining sand mining, including transportation, storage and sale of sand; operations (viii) take such actions as required for prevention of misuse of sand, and other such illegal and irregular activities in connection with sand mining operations including sand mining, transportation, storage and sale of sand; (ix)…. (x)…. (xi)…. (xii) …. (xiv)…. (xvi)…..” 11

22. Keeping in mind, the aforementioned provisions of the said Rule of Rules of 2021, if I look to the factual aspects of this case, it appears from the copy of the registered Deed of Lease vis-à-vis the environmental clearance, as has been issued by SEIAA that the permissible limit for excavation of the sand from the plot in question by the present petitioner as lessee for the first year 31,002 cubic meter, which is equivalent to 10,94,825.3 cubic feet. At this juncture, if I look to Page No.103 of the instant writ petition, it reveals that the appropriate authority noticed stock of 15,85,200 cubic feet of sand in the custody of the writ petitioner during inspection, which is definitely in excess of the permissible limit.

23. On being asked by this Court, Mr. Samim did not dispute that the aforementioned quantity of sand has been seized in connection with a criminal proceeding though it has been stated by Mr. Samim that copy of such seizure list was not provided to the writ petitioner.

24. Be that as it may, some materials have been placed before this Court that with regard to the quantity of excavation, the lessee has exceeded his permissible limit. At this juncture, the moot question arises for consideration as to whether in 12 the facts and circumstances of the present case, the order dated 29.05.2025, a copy of which has been annexed at page 97, has got any application or not. On close scrutiny of the said order dated 29.05.2025, it appears that the said order was issued in connection with the measurement of the Monsoon stocks and in the event, some excess quantity of sand stock is found.

25. In the case in hand, however, it appears to this Court that it is not a case of a stock of excess quantity of sand during the period of Monsoon and on the contrary, sufficient materials have been placed before this Court that there was excess excavation of sand beyond the permissible limit as have been mentioned in the aforementioned registered Deed of Lease as well as in the environmental clearance.

26. Such being the position, this Court has got no hesitation to hold that the respondent/State has duly invoked its power under Rule 20 of the said Rules of 2021 by way of seizure of the said minor minerals.

27. At juncture, the question arises whether respondent/State authority is within its power to dispose of 13 the said excess excavated sand by issuing and/or floating NIA dated 10.07.2026.

28. In this regard, this Court proposes to place reliance upon paragraph 21 of the judgement of the Hon’ble Division Bench as passed in the case of MAT 1472 of 2023 (State of West Bengal & Ors. Vs. Ma Sarada Enterprise), which reads as under:- “21. Seizure procedure is prescribed by the Rules of 2021. Nothing is placed on record to suggest that seizure procedure prescribed was not followed. The State prescribed a mechanism for sale of seized article by way of auction by the order dated August 12, 2022. E-auction methodology was also prescribed. E-auction of seized articles is one of the transparent ways of disposal of seized articles which were not released. It is acknowledged to be one of the better mechanisms for price discovery for sale of seized articles.”

29. It appears to this Court that the Hon’ble Division Bench, in an identical situation, had given a stamp of approval regarding disposal of the seized article by way of auction.

30. In course of his submission Mr. Samim strongly contended that the case of Ma Sarada Enterprise (supra) distinguishable from the facts and circumstances of the instant writ petition inasmuch as the judgement of Ma Sarada Enterprise (supra) was pronounced by the Hon’ble 14 Division Bench of this Court in the year 2023 whereas, the registered Deed of Lease between the respondents/State and the writ petitioner as lessee was executed in the year 2025 and, therefore, the said judgement has got manner of application.

31. With deepest respect to Mr. Samim the argument as advanced by him is not acceptable to this Court inasmuch as the Hon’ble Division Bench while dealing with the correctness of the procedure for disposal of seized minor mineral had found the procedure of e-Auction as correct, which is not at all contrary to the facts and circumstances, as involved in the instant writ petition.

32. In considered view of this Court, the respondents/State authority has taken a plausible decision for disposal of the seized minor minerals i.e. the sand on account of violation of the terms and conditions of the lease on the part of the writ petitioner.

33. This Court, thus, finds no reason to interfere with the impugned NIA dated 10.07.2026, a copy of which has been annexed at page 113 of the instant writ petition. 15

34. With the aforementioned observation, the instant writ petition stands dismissed.

35. Consequently, the interim order, as passed earlier, stands hereby vacated.

36. There shall be, however, no order as to costs.

37. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be furnished to the parties expeditiously upon compliance of all legal formalities (PARTHA SARATHI SEN, J.) RP/KS(AR.CT.)