Facts
The petitioner was awarded a five-year sand mining lease (March 2018 to March 2023) following an e-auction
Source reference: p. 1-2The petitioner alleged that mining operations were disrupted for approximately 17 months due to a road accident causing law and order issues, COVID-19 lockdown restrictions, and government-ordered road construction
Source reference: p. 2The petitioner submitted a representation on June 10, 2022, seeking an extension of the lease based on the "Force Majeure" clause (Clause 5, Part IX) of the lease deed
Source reference: p. 2-3The Additional District Magistrate rejected the prayer on May 10, 2023, and the Commissioner, Burdwan Division (Appellate Authority), dismissed the appeal on July 31, 2025, erroneously claiming the representation was filed after the lease expired and noting that the 2021 Sand Mining Policy prohibited renewals
Source reference: p. 3, 6Issues
1. Whether the Appellate Authority's finding that the representation was filed post-expiry of the lease was factually perverse
Source reference: p. 6, para 162. Whether the restriction on "renewal" under Clause 6(iii) of the West Bengal Sand Mining Policy 2021 applies to a prayer for "extension" under a Force Majeure clause
Source reference: p. 7, para 21-223. Whether disruptions like COVID-19 lockdowns and administrative road restrictions qualify as "Force Majeure" under the lease deed
Source reference: p. 7-10Law Applied
The court followed the distinction between "extension" (prolongation of the original lease) and "renewal" (grant of a new lease) as established in State of Gujarat v. Nirmalaben S. Mehta
Source reference: p. 6, para 18Clause 5, Part IX of the Lease Deed, which defines "Force Majeure" as acts of God, civil commotion, or "other happenings" beyond the lessee’s control
Source reference: p. 5, para 12Ministry of Finance Office Memorandum dated May 13, 2020, which categorized COVID-19 disruptions as a Force Majeure event
Source reference: p. 7-9Division Bench precedent in Dilip Mondal v. State of West Bengal, which clarified that "Force Majeure" covers natural calamities and specific listed events, but excludes stoppage caused by "unlawful actions" of authorities
Source reference: p. 10-11, para 31Reasoning
The court found the Appellate Authority’s order perverse because the records proved the petitioner submitted the extension prayer in June 2022, well before the lease expired in March 2023
Source reference: p. 6It ruled that the 2021 Sand Mining Policy’s bar on "renewals" does not nullify a lessee's contractual right to an "extension" for periods lost to Force Majeure
Source reference: p. 7Regarding the scope of Force Majeure, the court noted that while the COVID-19 lockdown likely falls under "other happenings" per the Central Government's 2020 Memorandum, general administrative stoppages or unlawful state actions—even if beyond the lessee's control—might not qualify under the strict definition set by the Division Bench in Dilip Mondal
Source reference: p. 10-11The court observed that the lower authorities failed to consider the 2020 Memorandum or the specific legal distinctions between different types of disruptions
Source reference: p. 11Holding
The court allowed the writ petition and set aside the Appellate Authority’s order dated July 31, 2025
It held that the Appellate Authority’s refusal was based on a factual error regarding the timing of the application and a legal error regarding the 2021 Policy
Source reference: p. 6-7The matter was remitted to the Appellate Authority to decide Appeal Case no. 53 of 2023 afresh within ten weeks, specifically evaluating the applicability of the May 13, 2020 Office Memorandum and the Dilip Mondal precedent to determine which specific periods of disruption qualify for a lease extension
Source reference: p. 11-12Original Court PDF
PAL ENTERPRISE, THROUGH PROPRIETOR, SABYASACHI PAL,vsSTATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS.
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in