Facts
The petitioner submitted applications for Long Term Mining Leases for sand on March 5, 2013, under the West Bengal Minor Mineral Rules, 2002
Source reference: p. 1These applications were rejected by the Additional District Magistrate on May 8, 2013
Source reference: p. 2The petitioner did not challenge this rejection at that time but, upon learning in 2020 that a private respondent had been granted a lease, submitted a representation in 2021 seeking a similar grant
Source reference: p. 2Following a High Court direction in a previous writ petition (WPA 15114 of 2021), the District Magistrate rejected the representation on April 21, 2022, citing the 2016 Rules
Source reference: p. 2An appeal to the Divisional Commissioner was also dismissed on September 12, 2025
Source reference: p. 2The petitioner challenged these orders, arguing that the 2013 rejection was based on rules later declared ultra vires and that Rule 61 of the 2016 Rules allowed for fresh consideration
Source reference: p. 2-3Issues
1. Whether the petitioner has a vested right to have his 2013 mining lease application reconsidered under the 2002 Rules after the commencement of the 2016 Rules.
Source reference: p. 6 / para. 262. Whether the rejection of the petitioner’s application constituted unlawful discrimination compared to the private respondent who was granted a lease.
Source reference: p. 6 / para. 28Law Applied
Rule 61 of the West Bengal Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2016, which stipulates that all pending mining lease applications received prior to the 2016 Rules become ineligible upon their commencement, unless a Grant Order or Letter of Intent had already been issued
Source reference: p. 5 / para. 19-20Rule 62 of the 2016 Rules regarding the repeal of the 2002 Rules
Source reference: p. 6 / para. 24Swapan Sarkar vs. State of West Bengal, which dealt with renewal rights and ultra vires amendments
Source reference: p. 7-8Sabina Yasmin Begum vs. State of West Bengal, which concerned vested contractual rights in renewal clauses
Source reference: p. 8 / para. 37Reasoning
The court reasoned that since the petitioner’s original application was rejected in 2013 and that order attained finality without a timely challenge, there was no "pending" application to be protected
Source reference: p. 5, 9Even if the application were considered pending, Rule 61 of the 2016 Rules expressly renders such prior applications ineligible
Source reference: p. 5 / para. 21The court observed that the petitioner did not fall under the proviso to Rule 61 because no Letter of Intent or Grant Order had ever been issued in his favour
Source reference: p. 6 / para. 30Regarding discrimination, the court found the petitioner was not similarly situated to the private respondent, as the latter received a grant order in August 2013, prior to the 2016 Rules, thereby qualifying for the Rule 61 proviso
Source reference: p. 6 / para. 28-29The court noted the petitioner could not challenge the Divisional Commissioner's jurisdiction after voluntarily invoking it
Source reference: p. 7 / para. 34Holding
The court answered both issues in the negative and held that the petitioner has no vested right to have an application submitted under repealed rules considered under a new competitive bidding regime
The writ petition was dismissed, and the orders of the District Magistrate and Divisional Commissioner were upheld; no order as to costs was made.
Source reference: p. 9 / para. 40Original Court PDF
DINABANDHU DAS BAIRAGYAvsSTATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS.
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in