A pre-2015 non-captive lease cannot authorise mining after its Section 8A(6) extension expires.

The petitioners’ predecessor obtained a 20-year lease for china clay and fire clay on 9 December 1966, due to expire on 8 December 1986.

He applied for renewal before expiry, and, after the application was not acted upon, filed the writ petition in 1986.

The petitioners later sought permission to continue mining, relying on interim orders made in the writ proceeding and a West Bengal Government notification dated 30 March 2021 concerning deemed extension of certain leases.

The writ petition was dismissed for default in 2020, with the interim order expressly vacated, and restored in 2021; no order reviving the interim protection was obtained.

The petitioners’ application sought permission to mine and pay royalty pending disposal of the writ petition.

1. Whether the petitioners could continue mining in reliance on interim orders that had been expressly vacated upon dismissal of the writ petition and were not revived when the writ petition was restored.

2. Whether the lease was deemed extended under Section 8A of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, as reflected in the State notification dated 30 March 2021, so as to permit the petitioners to continue mining.

Section 8A of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 provides for the duration and extension of mining leases.

Under subsections (2) and (3), leases are generally for 50 years; subsections (5) and (6) provide different extension regimes for pre-2015 leases depending on whether the mineral is used for captive or non-captive purposes, with subsection (6) providing extension up to 31 March 2020 for non-captive use, subject to its terms.

Subsection (9) excludes leases whose renewal has been rejected, or which have been determined or have lapsed.

The State notification of 30 March 2021 accepted the Legal Remembrancer’s view that certain pre-existing leases for reclassified minerals were to be extended in accordance with Section 8A.

An interim order expressly vacated on dismissal does not revive automatically upon restoration of the proceeding absent a specific order reviving it or a fresh interim order.

The court distinguished Sukriti Pebbles v. State of West Bengal and Smt. Jyoti Dutta v. State of Assam on their facts.

The court held that the earlier interim protection could not support continued mining: the 2020 dismissal expressly vacated the interim order, and restoration in 2021 did not revive it; the petitioners had neither sought revival nor obtained a fresh order.

As to the notification, the lease was a pre-2015 lease, but the petitioners had not shown that the minerals were used for captive purposes.

The court therefore treated the case as falling under Section 8A(6), under which any extension had expired on 31 March 2020.

It further observed that the lease’s renewal clause was subject to the applicable rules, and that the claimed renewal period had also elapsed.

The cited decisions did not alter that conclusion because they concerned materially different circumstances.

IA CAN 7 of 2026 was dismissed without costs, and the writ petition was directed to be listed on 30 November 2026.