Pendency of a show-cause notice does not automatically extend a mining lease.

The appellant held a sand-mining lease granted on 23 May 2018 for five years, due to expire on 22 May 2023.

In December 2020, the authorities issued a show-cause notice alleging illegal mining.

After litigation and remand, the District Magistrate (D.L. & L.R.O.) decided against the appellant on 23 May 2023, by which time the lease had expired.

The appellant sought to have the period allegedly lost during the pending notice added to the lease term, contending that the authorities’ decision-making delay prevented mining and that other lessees had received similar extensions.

The Single Judge dismissed the writ petition.

The appellant appealed.

Whether the pendency of the show-cause notice, in the absence of an order restraining mining, entitled the appellant to a deemed extension of its expired lease.

Whether the appellant could claim an extension under Article 14 on the ground that other lessees had allegedly received similar treatment.

Whether the Single Judge’s dismissal of the writ petition disclosed any illegality warranting appellate interference.

The Court applied the West Bengal Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 2016, observing that they contain no provision deeming a lease period extended because a show-cause notice alleging illegal mining remains pending; a court cannot create such a legal fiction contrary to the governing statute.

It distinguished State of Gujarat v. Nirmalaben S. Mehta, (2016) 9 SCC 240, on extension and renewal, holding that the decision did not support a deemed extension in the absence of an application for renewal or extension.

Relying on Dilip Mondal v. The State of West Bengal and Others, MAT 1304 of 2025, the Court stated that damages, rather than extension of the lease, may be the appropriate remedy where State action stops mining.

It also applied the rule that Article 14 does not confer “negative equality” based on an unlawful benefit granted to others, and the principle of acquiescence.

The Court found no material showing that the show-cause notice or any separate order restrained the appellant from mining during the lease term; its decision to stop mining could not, therefore, justify adding time to the lease.

The Rules provided no basis for such an automatic extension.

The Court also noted that the appellant had admitted in its reply that it had conducted mining beyond the leased area, making the challenge to the evidentiary basis of the District Magistrate’s decision immaterial to the extension claim.

Any alleged extension granted to other lessees could not establish a right under Article 14 if that benefit was unlawful.

Finally, the appellant had sought and obtained release of its bank guarantees after the lease expired, which the Court treated as acquiescence inconsistent with its later claim to a deemed extension.

It dismissed FMA 762 of 2026 on contest, affirmed the judgment dated 5 May 2026 in WPA 23759 of 2025, disposed of CAN 1 of 2026 and CAN 2 of 2026, and made no order as to costs.