Mining authorities cannot raise additional demands for excavation within environmental-clearance limits.

The respondent authorities issued an e-auction notice dated 11 January 2018 for grant of a sand-mining lease over Sand Block Galsi-II/Gopalpur/321(P)/B, measuring approximately 12.28 acres.

The petitioner was declared the successful bidder and received a letter of intent on 23 June 2018. His mining plan contemplated annual production of 1,29,600 cubic metres and total production of 6,48,000 cubic metres over five years.

A lease deed was subsequently executed on 14 July 2022 and registered on 12 August 2022. The lease required the petitioner to extract and dispatch a minimum of 1,29,600 cubic metres of sand annually.

However, the environmental clearance dated 24 July 2025 specified a total minerable reserve of 4,91,904 cubic metres over five years.

The State thereafter issued a notification dated 18 June 2026 reserving the right to recover a proportionate excess amount where the revised quantity in the environmental clearance exceeded the base quantity stated in the tender documents.

Relying on that notification, respondent no. 9 issued Memo dated 14 August 2026 demanding ₹2,81,44,706 from the petitioner.

Whether the demand of ₹2,81,44,706 raised by Memo dated 14 August 2026, on the basis of the notification dated 18 June 2026, was legally sustainable when the environmental clearance prescribed a total minerable reserve of 4,91,904 cubic metres over five years?

Whether the petitioner was entitled to carry on excavation in accordance with the quantity authorised under the environmental clearance without further financial demand or obstruction by the respondent authorities?

The Court applied the contractual terms of the registered mining lease and the quantity authorised under the environmental clearance, holding that mining activity could not lawfully exceed the permissible minerable reserve.

It considered the State’s notification dated 18 June 2026, which permitted recovery of a proportionate excess amount where the revised quantity exceeded the tender’s base quantity.

The Court also followed its earlier decision in Raju Mandal v. The State of West Bengal & Ors., WPA 14231 of 2026, where it held that the authorities could not claim any further amount when the lessee excavated sand within the quantity specified in the registered lease deed.

The Court found that the environmental clearance authorised a total minerable reserve of 4,91,904 cubic metres over five years, while the lease and tender documents referred to a five-year quantity of 6,48,000 cubic metres.

Since the petitioner could not extract beyond the quantity approved by the environmental clearance, the Court treated the environmental clearance as controlling the permissible excavation.

Applying the principle stated in Raju Mandal, the Court held that the authorities had no justification for raising the impugned demand merely by relying on the notification dated 18 June 2026.

The demand was therefore found unsustainable and the authorities were directed not to obstruct excavation undertaken within the environmental-clearance limit.

Memo No. 521/DL & LRO-PRBDN/MM/26 dated 14 August 2026, demanding ₹2,81,44,706 from the petitioner, was quashed.

Respondent nos. 9 and 5 were directed not to obstruct the petitioner’s excavation activities during the subsistence of the registered lease, provided that excavation remained within the environmental-clearance limit of 4,91,904 cubic metres.

The authorities were, however, granted liberty to take appropriate legal action if the petitioner excavated beyond the permissible quantity.