Authority: High Court at Calcutta, Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction

Order Date: 16 June 2026

Case Overview

  • Parties: petitioner Ambey Niwas Pvt. Ltd. (represented by Mr. Somnath Roy Chowdhury, Ms. Arpita Chowdhury, Mr. Anik Das) vs. The State of West Bengal, West Bengal Mineral Development and Trading Corporation Limited, and others.
  • Nature of proceedings: Writ petition (WPA 3349 of 2026) challenging the District Magistrate, Bankura’s order dated 26 December 2023 rejecting the petitioner's application for extension of a sand mining lease.
  • Key timeline:
  • 06 Feb 2018 – Long‑Term Mining Lease Deed for sand (5‑year term) registered.
  • 26 Feb 2019 – Show‑cause‑cum‑suspension order issued (leasee had not applied for challan until this date).
  • 26 Dec 2019 – First suspension order revoked.
  • 02 Jan 2020 – Application for demarcation of leasehold area filed; demarcation and possession handed over on 16 Jan 2020.
  • 07 Mar 2020 – Second show‑cause‑cum‑suspension order issued (heavy machinery alleged to damage river water supply).
  • 18 Mar 2023 – Petitioner's application for lease extension filed.
  • 26 Dec 2023 – District Magistrate disposed of the case, rejecting both the reply to the show‑cause notice and the extension prayer.
  • 09 Jun 2025 – Appeal (Appeal Case No. 11 of 2024) before Commissioner, Medinipur Division remanded the matter to the District Magistrate for fresh hearing.
  • Post‑remand – Joint enquiry team inspected the site; found river dry, no sand mining activity, no boundary pillars, and no heavy machinery.
  • 05 Feb 2023 – Lease expired.
  • Legal arguments:
  • Petitioner's counsel argued delay in possession (23 months) and a 50‑day gap before the second suspension notice, invoking the “force majeure” clause (Clause 5, Part IX) for lease extension.
  • Respondent counsel contended the order is appealable under West Bengal Minor Mineral Concession Rules 2016, that the petitioner mined without challan, and that the force‑majeure clause does not cover unlawful suspension.
  • State counsel cited Supreme Court precedent (Sulekhan Singh & Co. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2016 4 SCC 663) that no fundamental right exists to a mining lease and that extensions require tender under the Rules.
  • Relevant precedents cited:
  • Dilip Mondal vs. State of West Bengal (Division Bench, 27 Nov 2025) – force‑majeure limited to natural calamities; suspension by authorities not covered.
  • JHM Import Export Pvt Ltd vs. State of West Bengal (2025) – extension granted due to delay in replying to show‑cause notice.
  • Pradip Arora vs. State of West Bengal (2025) – extension granted for period of suspension.
  • Radharaman Construction & Marketing Pvt Ltd vs. State of West Bengal (2023) – extension granted for loss due to vehicle‑movement restriction.
  • Swapan Sarkar vs. State of West Bengal (2021) – lease term commences from possession date; delay does not extend lease.
  • Ashok Kumar Saha vs. State of West Bengal (2025) – social justice cannot favor one applicant over prospective bidders.
  • Hemanta Kumar Ghosh vs. State of West Bengal (2024) – discretion to renew lease lies solely with the lessor.
  • Statutory framework: West Bengal Minor Mineral Concession Rules 2016, West Bengal Minor Mineral Auction Rules 2016, West Bengal Sand Mining Policy 2021, West Bengal Sand (Mining, Transportation, Storage and Sale) Rules 2021 – all prohibit lease extension after expiry and require competitive bidding.
  • Force‑majeure clause (Clause 5, Part IX) excerpt:

"Failure on the part of the Lessee… shall not be deemed a breach… if arising from force majeure… The period of such delay shall be added to the period fixed by this lease. ‘Force majeure’ means act of God, war, insurrection, riot, civil commotion, strike, earthquake, tide, storm, tidal wave, flood, lightning, explosion, fire and other happenings beyond the Lessee’s control."

Final Outcome

  • The Court held that the force‑majeure clause does not apply to the suspension order dated 07 Mar 2020, as the stoppage was due to unlawful action by the authorities, not a supervening impossibility.
  • The District Magistrate correctly applied the 2016/2021 Rules, which prohibit extension of a mining lease after its expiry.
  • Consequently, the petitioner's request for lease extension and resumption of mining activities was rejected.
  • The petitioner may seek damages for loss in a competent civil court; no order as to costs was made.
  • The writ petition is dismissed.

Topics: Mining Lease Extension, Force Majeure Clause, Legal Precedent