Authority: High Court at Calcutta, Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction

Order Date: 16 June 2026

Case Overview

  • Petitioners: Adyamaa Tradelink Pvt. Ltd. (represented by Mr. Somnath Roy Chowdhury, Ms. Arpita Chowdhury, Mr. Anik Das) sought resumption of a sand mining lease and an extension of its term.
  • Respondents: State of West Bengal, District Magistrate, Bankura (respondent No.2), West Bengal Mineral Development and Trading Corporation Limited (respondent No.3), and a fourth respondent.
  • The lease was a 5‑year long‑term sand mining lease registered on 21‑05‑2018; demarcation completed on 23‑02‑2019.
  • The District Magistrate issued a suspension order on 26‑02‑2019, revoked on 26‑12‑2019; possession was handed over on 09‑01‑2020 after the petitioner paid the first instalment on 02‑01‑2020.
  • A second suspension order dated 07‑03‑2020 was issued alleging illegal mining with heavy machines and overloaded transport.
  • The petitioner appealed the 07‑03‑2020 order; the appeal was remanded by the Divisional Commissioner on 09‑06‑2025 for fresh hearing and field enquiry.
  • A joint enquiry team inspected the site; its report found no evidence of mining activity, no boundary pillars, and noted the river was full of water. The lease had expired on 20‑05‑2023, and more than two and a half years had passed since expiry, making it impossible to assess mining activity during the lease period.
  • The petitioner argued that the delay and suspension constituted a “force majeure” under Clause 5, Part IX of the lease deed and sought an extension of the lease term.
  • Respondents contended that the lease rules (West Bengal Minor Mineral Concession Rules 2016 and 2021) expressly prohibit lease extensions, and that the force‑majeure clause applies only to natural calamities, not administrative suspensions.
  • The Court examined precedents: Dilip Mondal (force‑majeure limited to natural events), Sulekhan Singh (no fundamental right to a lease), Hemanta Kumar Ghosh (renewal discretion lies with the lessor), and others where extensions were granted in different factual contexts.
  • The Court concluded that the suspension order was lawful, the force‑majeure clause does not cover it, and the statutory rules forbid any extension of the lease period.

Final Outcome

  • The writ petition is dismissed; the petitioner's request for resumption of mining activities and lease extension is denied.
  • No order as to costs.
  • Parties may obtain urgent photostat certified copies upon compliance with formalities.

Topics: Mining Lease, Court Judgment