M/S. BIKALPA TRADERS PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY vs STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS.
- Court
- Calcutta High Court
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION
APPELLATE SIDE
Before:
The Hon’ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya
WPA 26723 of 2025
M/s. Bikalpa Traders Private Limited
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
For the petitioner : Mr. Kushal Chatterjee
Mr. A.S. Tarafdar
….. Advocates
For the State : Mr. K.J. Yusuf, AGP
Mr. Saurav Chaudhuri
…… Advocates
For the Respondent no. 2 : Mr. Sanjay Saha
Mr. Raju Mondal ……. Advocates
Reserved on : 09.02.2026
Judgment on : 30.04.2026
Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, J.:-
1. The petitioner has challenged the order of the Divisional Commissioner,
Burdwan Division dated 31.07.2025 passed in an Appeal no. 14 of 2025 and
the order of the Additional District Magistrate and District Land and Land
th
Reforms Officer, Paschim Burdwan dated 4 February, 2025 in this writ
petition and prayed for a direction upon the authorities of West Bengal
Mineral Development and Trading Corporation Limited (for short
“WBMDTCL”) to extend the lease period by 11 months.
2. Petitioner, a private limited company, participated in an e-auction for grant
of mining lease vide Notice Inviting Tender dated 01.02.2017. Petitioner was
declared as a successful bidder in respect of the sand block within mouza
Page 1 of 12
Birkulti JL No. 15, Plot no. 2065(P) under Police Station Jamuria in the
District of Paschim Burdwan. Petitioner claims to have deposited 1/3 of the
bid amount and the respondent respondents issued a Letter of Intent dated
March 20, 2017 calling upon the petitioner to obtain necessary permissions
and clearance for the purpose of execution and registration of the mining
lease. Petitioner claims to have paid the remaining bid amount in advance
and also complied with the requirements for execution and registration of
the mining lease. Thereafter, a long term mining lease was executed on July
9, 2021 for a period of five years for the sand block in question and the
same was registered on August 3, 2021. It is the further case of the
petitioners that the possession of the sand block in question was handed
over to the petitioner only on June 22, 2022. Petitioners submitted several
representations before the respondent authorities requesting them to correct
the “date of commencement of the lease” and the “lease period end date” in
the portal of WBMDTCL by calculating the five year period from the date of
delivery of possession. Alleging inaction on the part of the respondent
authorities in not communicating their decision inspite of several
representations made by the petitioner, a writ petition being WPA No. 29651
of 2024 was filed which was disposed of by a co-ordinate bench by an order
th
dated January 9, 2025 by directing the 5 respondent therein to consider
the petitioner’s representation and to pass a reasoned order within the time
limit stipulated in the said order after affording an opportunity of hearing.
3. Pursuant to the said order, a misc. case was registered and after conducting
a hearing, the Additional District Magistrate and District Land and Land
Reforms Officer, Paschim Bardhaman rejected the claim of the petitioner.
4. Being aggrieved by the said order dated 04.02.2025, petitioner preferred an
appeal under Rule 51 of the West Bengal Minor Minerals Concession Rules,
2016 (for short “the 2016 Concession Rules”) before the learned Divisional
Commissioner Burdwan Division. The appellate authority dismissed the
appeal preferred by the petitioner by an order dated 31.07.2025.
Page 2 of 12
5. The Additional District Magistrate and District Land and Land Reforms
th
Officer, Paschim Bardhaman filed a report dated 18 December 2025 and
the petitioner filed an exception to the said report.
6. Mr. Chatterjee learned advocate appearing for the petitioner contended that
th
though the lease deed was executed on 9 July, 2025 and registered on
03.08.2021 but there was a delay of about 11 months in handing over
possession of the sand block in question to the petitioner. He submitted that
such delay is entirely attributable to the respondent authorities for which
the petitioner could not commence the activities in terms of the mining
lease. He contended that since the reasons for which the petitioner was
prevented from commencing the business from the date of registration of the
lease cannot be attributable to the petitioner, the petitioner is entitled to
extension of the period lost due to the delay in delivery of possession of the
sand block in question to the petitioner. In support of such contention, Mr.
Chatterjee placed strong reliance upon clause 5 under part IX of the lease
deed. He contended that the delay in carrying out the work of demarcation
and delivery of possession was beyond the control of the lessee/petitioner
herein and such facts would squarely fall within the expression “other
happenings which the lessee could not reasonably prevent or control”. He
contended that in cases where fulfillment of any terms and conditions of the
lease is delayed due to “Force Majeure”, the period of such delay shall have
to be added to the period fixed by the lease. In support of such contention
Mr. Chatterjee placed reliance upon the decision of co-ordinate benches in
Swapan Sarkar vs. State of West Bengal and Ors. in WPA 14848 of
2021 ; Radharaman Construction and Marketing Private Limited and
Another vs. State of West Bengal and Ors. reported at 2023 SCC Online
Cal 4791 , JHM Import Export Pvt. Ltd. vs. The State of West Bengal
and ors. in WPA 11031 of 2025 and Pradip Arora vs. State of West Bengal
in WPA 13654 of 2024.
7. Mr. Chatterjee contended that contractual timelines and commencing
clauses must be construed purposively and not mechanically or literally in
Page 3 of 12
order to advance the ends of justice. In support of such contention he placed
reliance upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of
Indsil Hydro Power and Manganese Limited vs. State of Kerala and
ors . reported at (2020) 16 SCC 276 .
8. Mr. Saha learned advocate appearing for the WBMDTCL seriously disputed
the submission made by Mr. Chatterjee. He contended that a mining lease is
valid for a period of five years from the date of its registration. He further
contended that Rule 5(2) of the 2016 Concession Rule provides that the date
of commencement of the period for which a mining lease is granted shall be
the date on which the duly executed lease deed is registered as per the
conditions laid down by the said rules. He further submitted that Rule 10(6)
of the West Bengal Mining Minerals (Auction) Rule 2016 (for short the “2016
Auction Rules”) also laid down that the date on which duly executed the
mining lease deed is registered shall be date of commencement of the mining
lease. He thus submitted that the period of five years shall be computed
from the date of registration and not from the date of handing over
possession of the sand block to the lessee. He contended that Clause 5
under part IX of the Lease Agreement only restrains the State Government
from imposing any penalty if the lessee could not perform its obligations
under the lease. Mr. Saha placed reliance upon a judgment of the Hon’ble
Division Bench dated November 27, 2025 passed in MAT 1304 of 2025
with CAN 2 of 2025 in the case of Dilip Mondal vs. The State of West
Bengal and ors. in support of his contention that the alleged delay in
demarcation and delivery of possession does not come within any of the
supervening impossibilities or force majeure as contemplated in Clause 5
under part IX of the Lease deed. He, thus, contended that the petitioner is
not entitled to extension of the period of lease. He further submitted that the
original authority as well as the appellate authority after considering the
materials on record assigned cogent reasons in support of the ultimate
conclusion.
Page 4 of 12
9. Mr. Saha submitted that in view of the introduction of the Sand Mining
Policy, 2021, the State Government has appointed designated Nodal Agency
for grant of sand mining leases. He further submitted that such policy also
restricted the extension of existing sand mining leases after its expiry.
Heard the learned advocates for the parties and perused the materials
placed.
10. A long term mining lease was executed in favour of the petitioner company
on July 9, 2021 for a period of five years. The lease deed was registered on
August 3, 2021. The possession certificate was issued on June 22, 2022.
11. The petitioner prayed for rectification of the field namely “expiry of LTML” in
the certralised portal of WBMDTCL by incorporating the date of expiry of the
long term lease as June 21, 2027 by calculating the lease period with effect
from the date of delivery of possession.
12. Petitioner alleges that the respondent authorities are responsible for the
delay of about 11 months in delivery of possession after the date of
registration of the long term mining lease in favour of the petitioner. On the
other hand the respondent authorities claim that the petitioner lessee was
responsible for the delay in taking delivery of possession of the sand block in
question.
13. The short issue that arises for consideration is whether the petitioner is
entitled to extension of the period of lease on account of 11 month delay in
delivery of possession after the registration of the lease deed.
14. Rule 5(2) of the 2016 Concession Rules provides that the date of
commencement of the period for which the mining lease is granted shall be
the date on which a duly executed lease deed is registered as per the
conditions laid down by 2016 Concession Rules. Rule 10(6) of the 2016
Auction Rules states that the date on which a duly executed mining lease is
registered shall be the date of commencement of the mining lease.
Page 5 of 12
15. Upon a conjoint reading of the aforesaid provisions it follows that the
commencement of the mining lease period should be the date on which a
duly executed mining lease deed is registered.
16. The distinction between “extension” and “renewal” of a lease deed has been
succinctly stated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of
Gujarat and ors. vs. Nirmalaben S. Mehta and anr. reported at (2016) 9
SCC 240 . It was observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that in case of
“renewal” a new lease is required while in the case of “extension” the same
lease continues in force during additional period by the performance of
stipulated act. The word “extension” when used in its proper and usual
sense in connection with a lease, means prolongation of the lease.
17. It, therefore, follows that extension of a lease is not a fresh grant but it is
only a prolongation of the original lease.
18. In the case on hand the petitioner has prayed for extension of the lease and
not renewal of the same.
19. Petitioner has placed strong reliance upon clause 5 under Part IX of the
lease deed in support of the prayer for extension of the lease.
20. It would be beneficial to take note of the stipulation contained in Clause 5
under Part IX (General Provisions) of the lease deed for which it is extracted
hereinafter-
“5. Failure on the part of the Lessee/Lessees to fulfill any of the terms
and conditions of this lease shall not give the State Government any
claim against the Lessee/Lessees or be deemed a breach of this lease, in
so far as such failure is considered by the said Government to arise from
force majeure, and if through force majeure the fulfillment by the
Lessee/Lessees of any of the terms and conditions of this lease be
delayed, the period of such delay shall be added to the period fixed by
this lease. In this clause the expression “force Majeure” means act of
God, war, insurrection, riot, civil commotion, strike, earthquake, tide,
storm, tidal wave; flood, lightning, explosion, fire and other happenings,
which the Lessee/Lessees could not reasonably prevent or control.”
Page 6 of 12
21. In Swapan Sarkar (supra), the long term mining lease was granted on
10.11.2008 which was subsequently renewed by an agreement dated
08.08.2016 for a period of 5 years and possession of the leasehold property
was given on or after 26.04.2017 and a prayer for extension of the lease
period was made.
22. In Swapan Sarkar (supra) the co-ordinate bench after noticing that the
possession was handed over after a delay of about eight months from the
date of renewal held that the term of the lease ought to commence from the
date when the delivery of possession of the leasehold land is handed over to
the lessee. The State of the West Bengal however, carried the matter in
appeal against the order dated 17.12.2021 passed by the co-ordinate bench
in WPA 14848 of 2021 ( Swapan Sarkar vs. State of West Bengal and Ors. )
and the Hon’ble Division Bench after noting that the appeal has really
become infructuous as the portion of the impugned order whereby the
period of lease was considered to be valid till a particular date has worked
itself out as that date has gone by in the meantime. However, the Hon’ble
Division Bench clarified that as a matter of principle, if the lessee in any
manner was in continuous possession of the land in question, mere delay in
completion of paper work pertaining to renewal of the lease would not be a
ground for extending the validity of the lease period.
23. That apart, the long term mining lease for sand in the case of Swapan
Sarkar (supra) was granted under the provisions of the West Bengal Minor
Minerals Rules, 2002 and the lease was subsequently renewed under the
2002 Rules. However, the petitioner was granted mining lease after being
declared as a successful bidder in the e-auction process under the 2016
Concession Rules read with the 2016 Auction Rules. 2002 Rules provides
for renewal of mining lease whereas there is no provision for renewal under
the 2016 Concession Rules.
24. The decision in the case of Swapan Sarkar is distinguishable on facts as
th
rightly recorded by the Additional District Magistrate in the order dated 4
February, 2025.
Page 7 of 12
25. In JHM Import Export Pvt. Ltd. (supra) a show cause notice was issued
alleging illegal sand mining activity. Show cause notice was duly replied to.
The co-ordinate bench noted that inspite of receipt of the reply to show
cause notice, no decision was taken by the respondent authority and for
such inaction and/or non-action, the lease period expired. Co-ordinate
bench returned a factual finding that the entire burden was shifted to the
petitioner for allowing the lease to expire for no fault of the petitioner. After
noting that Rule 50 provides for imposition of penalty in case of illegal
mining, co-ordinate bench drew an adverse inference for not imposing
penalty and accordingly directed extension of the lease period.
26. The said decision being distinguishable on facts cannot come to the aid of
the petitioner.
27. In Pradip Arora (supra) the mining operation of the writ petitioner therein
were directed to be suspended by the respondent authorities for alleged
violation on the part of the writ petitioner regarding excavation of sand
beyond the leasehold area for which the petitioner could not carry on his
business from April 2019 to September 2021. The co-ordinate bench after
arriving at a finding that the respondent authorities could not justify their
action for suspending the petitioner from carrying out the mining operation
for 29 months directed the respondent authorities to extend the period of
lease for a period of 29 months. The decision being distinguishable on facts
cannot come to the aid of the petitioner.
28. There is, however, no quarrel to the proposition of law laid down by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in Indsil Hydro Power and Manganese Limited
(supra) that in construing a commercial document, the contract must be
read and understood in its entirety so as to contribute to it a business
meaning which was within the understanding of the contracting parties. The
said decision cannot come to the aid of the petitioner herein as the 2016
Concession Rules as well as the 2016 Auction Rules specifically provided
that the lease period would commence from the date of registration of the
lease. The lease deed also specifically states that the lessee shall hold the
Page 8 of 12
premises granted and demised from the date of registration for a period of
five years.
29. The expression “force majeure” used in Clause 5 of part IX of the deed of
lease was interpreted by a co-ordinate bench in Radharaman
Construction and Marketing Private Limited (supra) to include a
situation which the lessee cannot reasonably prevent or control. The co-
ordinate bench after noting that the petitioner therein was unable to carry
on mining operation in view of a notification issued by the District
Administration restricting Movement of all types of heavy loaded goods
vehicles for a certain period held that the petitioner was entitled to extension
of the period lost due to imposition of the restriction in terms of clause 5
under part IX of the lease deed itself.
30. The “force majeure” clause in the lease deed fell for consideration before the
Hon’ble Division Bench in Dilip Mondal (supra). The Hon’ble Division
Bench held that a “force majeure” pertains to an natural calamity such as
act of God, war, insurrection, riot, Civil Commotion, strike, earthquake, tide,
storm, tidal wave; flood, lighting, explosion, fire and other happenings,
which the Lessee/Lessee could not reasonably prevent or control.
31. The Hon’ble Division Bench proceeded further to observe that stoppage of
mining operation even if due to unlawful action on the part of the
respondent authorities, which, though beyond the control of the lessee, does
not come within any of the supervening possibilities or force majeure as
contemplated under the force majeure clause.
32. It follows from the aforesaid observation of the Hon’ble Division Bench that
the expression “other happenings” shall include only a natural calamity not
otherwise specifically mentioned in the said clause.
33. Mr. Chatterjee sought to distinguish the said decision by contending that
the said decision dealt with a case of extension of lease by invoking the force
majeure clause on account of interruption in the mining activities after
commencement of the mining operations.
Page 9 of 12
34. This Court is not inclined to accept such contention of Mr. Chatterjee as
after reading the said decision as a whole, to the mind of this Court, the
ratio of the said decision is that “force majeure” pertains only to natural
calamity and delay in fulfillment of the activities by the lessee even for the
alleged unlawful action of the respondent authorities would not fall under
the force majeure clause even if the lessee could not reasonably prevent or
control the same.
35. The Hon’ble Division Bench after taking note of the well settled proposition
that the Court cannot rewrite a contract between the parties and also that
the entire mining operations and the mining lands have been vested in the
WBMDTCL i.e., Nodal Agency after the coming into force of the 2021 Act,
held that there is no scope for the State to extend the period of the lease
deed or even Court directing the State to do so. The Hon’ble Division Bench,
further observed that the remedy of the person aggrieved lies in a claim for
damages which is to be made before a competent Civil Court having
jurisdiction.
36. The decision in Dilip Mondal (supra) is a binding precedent.
37. In the case on hand the petitioner has claimed extension of the period of
lease on the ground of delay on the part of the respondent authorities in
delivering the possession of the sand block to the petitioner. Petitioner
alleges that the delay is wholly attributable to the respondent authorities
and on the contrary the stand of the respondent authorities is that the
petitioner was responsible for such delay.
38. Even if for argument’s sake the allegation of the petitioner is taken at its
face value, the question would be whether for such action on the part of the
respondent authorities the petitioner is entitled to an extension of a period
of lease.
39. By applying the proposition of law laid down by the Hon’ble Division Bench
in Dilip Mondal (supra) this Court holds that the alleged delay of 11
months in delivery of possession of sand block in question to the petitioner
Page 10 of 12
after the registration of the long term mining lease even though the same
may be beyond the control of the petitioner lessee, such a situation would
not fall within the expression “other happenings” as contemplated under the
“force majeure” clause.
40. The lease deed specifically states that the lease period would be for a period
of five years from the date of registration of the lease deed and the sand
mining lease is a full-fledged commercial contract and the petitioner
carrying on mining business entered into the contract with its eyes wide
open. The petitioner cannot be permitted to resile from that position and
after enjoying the benefits under the said lease for a substantial period of
time cannot now turn around and challenge the terms of the deed by
contending that the date of commencement of the lease would be from the
date of delivery of possession and not from the date of registration of the
deed as per the terms of the lease deed.
41. That apart, the 2016 Concession Rules do not provide for extension of lease.
Clause 5 under Part IX of the lease deed only allows extension of lease
under certain contingencies. The prayer for extension could be allowed only
if the conditions stipulated in Clause 5 under Part IX of the lease deed is
satisfied. Petitioner failed to bring his case within the four corners of the
said clause. To the mind of this Court, petitioner is not entitled to extension
of the lease period for the alleged delay in delivery of possession of the sand
block in question.
42. The Additional District Magistrate and District Land and Land Reforms
Officer Paschim Medinipur took note of the 2016 Concession Rules, 2016
Auction Rules as well as various clauses of the lease deed and rejected the
petitioner’s prayer for extension of the lease by assigning cogent reasons.
The said respondent also correctly applied the observations of the Hon’ble
Division Bench in MAT 2047 of 2022.
43. The appellate authority after affording an opportunity of hearing to the
petitioner took note of the relevant provisions of the 2016 Concession Rules
Page 11 of 12
and the 2016 Auction Rules as well as clauses of the lease deed refused to
interfere with the order passed by the Additional District Magistrate and
District Land and Land Reforms Officer dated 04.02.2025.
44. It is well settled that Judicial Review is not an appeal against the decision of
the authorities and it is only a review of the decision making process.
45. For all the reasons as aforesaid this Court is of the considered view that
there is no infirmity in the decision making process. The impugned orders
call for no interference. Consequently the prayer for petitioner for extension
of the lease stands rejected.
46. The writ petition accordingly stands dismissed.
47. There shall be, however, no order as to costs.
48. Urgent photostat certified copies, if applied for, be supplied to the parties
upon compliance of all formalities.
(HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA, J.)
Page 12 of 12