Mining Lease Extension Denied Where Fixed-Term Agreement Lacks Extension Clause and Petitioner Accepted Release of Security.

The petitioner, a private limited company, was granted a five-year mining lease for sand in Mouza Mamudpur, Bankura, following an e-auction. The lease was executed on May 23, 2018, and set to expire on May 22, 2023.

On December 14, 2020, the petitioner was served a show-cause notice alleging various violations of lease conditions, including illegal extraction methods and unauthorized bridge construction.

Due to multiple rounds of litigation (WPA 18288 of 2024, WPA 30742 of 2024, and WPA 15781 of 2025), the High Court repeatedly directed the District Magistrate (DM) to pass a reasoned order regarding the petitioner’s prayer for lease extension.

The DM, Bankura, passed the impugned order on August 21, 2025, rejecting the extension on the grounds of lease violations and absence of statutory provisions for renewal/extension.

1. Whether the District Magistrate, Bankura, failed to adhere to the Court's directions regarding the consideration of the petitioner's written objections against the joint inspection report.

2. Whether there exists any legal or statutory provision for the extension or renewal of a sand mining lease granted under the 2016 Rules.

3. Whether the petitioner is entitled to an extension of the lease period based on the principle of "force majeure" or discriminatory treatment.

The Court primarily applied the West Bengal Mining Mineral Concession Rules, 2016, the West Bengal Mining Mineral Auction Rules, 2016, and the Sand (Mining) Transportation, Storage and Sale Rules, 2021, which collectively mandate that sand mining leases are granted for fixed terms without provisions for renewal or automatic extension.

The Court also referenced Schedule 6(iii) of the West Bengal Sand Mining Policy, 2021, which states that leases expire automatically and vest back in the State.

Clause 5, Part IX of the Lease Deed was examined regarding extensions due to "force majeure" events.

The Court found that the DM specifically addressed each point raised by the petitioner in their written objection, including the unauthorized construction of a wooden bridge across the river bed and mining beyond the demarcated area.

Even though the petitioner argued they had no alternative route, the DM correctly noted that no permission was obtained for such activities.

Regarding the legal right to an extension, the Court observed that the relevant 2016 and 2021 Rules contain no provisions for extending or renewing sand leases.

Although Clause 5 of the lease deed allows for extensions under "force majeure," the petitioner failed to raise the COVID-19 lockdown as a ground before the lower authorities, precluding its consideration by the High Court.

Crucially, the Court noted that the petitioner had already applied for and received the return of their bank guarantee and financial security after the lease's natural expiration, which signified their acceptance of the lease's termination.

The Court concluded that there is no statutory right to a lease extension and that the petitioner’s conduct (accepting the return of bank guarantees) estopped them from seeking an extension.

The impugned order dated August 21, 2025, was upheld as legally valid.