Res judicata does not bar claims arising later or left undecided in earlier writ proceedings.

The appellants’ predecessor was granted a five-year sand-mining lease after succeeding in an e-auction. When the sand was found unsuitable for mining, the State decided to refund the deposited revenue; a 2019 communication recorded the refundable amount as Rs.1,38,87,685.

In an earlier writ petition, the Court directed the authorities to arrange the refund within two months, but the amount remained unpaid.

On a subsequent representation, the District Magistrate rejected their request and sought bank details to transfer the sanctioned refund.

The appellants’ next writ petition, seeking interest or, alternatively, continuation of the lease under Rule 21 of the West Bengal Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2016, was dismissed on res judicata grounds.

Whether the claims for interest on the delayed refund and renewal or continuation of the lease were barred by res judicata or constructive res judicata.

Whether the appellants could pursue those claims before the authorities empowered to decide them, and whether the admitted refund should be paid pending that consideration.

The Court applied the principles of res judicata and constructive res judicata: a matter already adjudicated may not be re-litigated, and a matter that could and ought to have been raised in earlier proceedings may be barred; however, a prior order directing consideration of a representation without deciding its merits is not a conclusive adjudication of the underlying claim.

The Court also considered Rule 21 of the West Bengal Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2016, which the appellants invoked regarding continuation of the lease, but did not determine its application or the merits of renewal.

It proceeded on the basis that the authorities empowered to consider interest and lease renewal may be different, and that each claim should be addressed by the competent authority in accordance with law.

The earlier writ order directed payment of the admitted refund but did not decide a claim for interest, which arose upon non-payment within the prescribed period. Nor had renewal or continuation of the lease been sought in that earlier proceeding; the later order merely required the appellants’ representation to be considered.

The Court therefore held that neither order barred the later claims by res judicata or constructive res judicata. However, because the claims concerned distinct matters for potentially different authorities, and the appellants had not made comprehensive representations to the appropriate authorities, the Court directed them to pursue each claim separately rather than decide the merits itself.

The appellants were permitted to make appropriate representations to the authorities competent to decide their claims for interest and renewal or continuation of the lease; those authorities must provide a hearing and issue reasoned decisions in accordance with law, uninfluenced by the prior court adjudications.

The Court directed the appellants to provide their bank details by October 14, 2026, and directed the authorities, upon receipt, to refund the admitted amount of Rs.1,38,87,635 at the earliest, preferably within a fortnight, without prejudice to either side’s contentions on the representations.

There was no order as to costs.