M/S. Bikalpa Traders Private Limited v. The State Of West Bengal And ORS.
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE 47 09.01.2025 Sc Ct. no.2 WPA 29651 OF 2024 -------------- M/s. Bikalpa Traders Private Limited company, represented by its Director Pawan Arora Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
Mr. Asif Sohail Tarafdar .... For the Petitioner Mr. Chandi Charan De, AGP Ms. Reshma Chatterjee.
.... For the Respondent Nos.1, 3 to 6 Mr. Sanjay Saha Mr. Raju Mondal.
.... For the Respondent No.2 Affidavit-of-service, filed in Court today, is taken on record.
Mr. Asif Sohail Tarafdar, learned advocate appears for the petitioner.
Mr.
Chandi Charan De, learned Additional Government Pleader appears for the respondent nos.1, 3 to 6.
Mr. Sanjay Saha, learned advocate appears for the respondent no.2.
The Mining Lease for excavation of sand block was executed on June 9, 2021 in favour of the petitioner, Annexure - P4 at page 27 to the writ
petition. The currency of the lease is for five years. The possession of the land was handed over to the petitioner on June 22, 2022, Annexure - P7 at page 103 to the writ petition. The record, therefore, shows there was a delay for about eleven months in handing over possession of the leased out sand block to the petitioner. The lease will expire on July 8, 2026. Diverse representations have been made by the petitioner claiming an extension of lease for about eleven months which was the delay, caused by the State authority in handing over the sand block physically to the petitioner.
After considering the submissions made on behalf of the parties and upon perusal of the materials on record, at the outset, this Court is of the firm view that, the transaction involved in this writ petition is purely commercial. By granting lease, the State has earned revenue from the petitioner. It is, therefore, the obligation of the State authority to deliver the possession of the sand block simultaneously with the execution of the lease which, admittedly, had not been done in this case and the possession was delivered after about eleven months of the execution of the lease.
In view of the above, the respondent no.5 upon issuing a prior hearing notice of at least seven days to the petitioner and the respondent no.2 and after
granting them an opportunity of hearing shall dispose of the representation of the petitioner dated August 12, 2024 at page 106 to the writ petition by passing a reasoned order in accordance with law.
The entire exercise as directed above, shall be carried out and completed by the respondent no.5 within a period of four weeks from the date of communication of this order and the reasoned order then shall be communicated to the petitioner and the respondent no.2 positively within a further period of one week from the date of the said reasoned order to be passed. It is made clear that, this Court has not gone into the merits of the claims and rival claims of the parties and the petitioner shall be at liberty to urge whatever points it wishes to urge by relying upon whatever records and documents it wishes to reply upon before the respondent no.5 but the same shall not travel beyond the scope of the said representation dated August 12, 2024. In the event the reasoned order goes in favour of the petitioner, the appropriate authority shall take all necessary and consequential steps to give an immediate effect thereto but positively within a period of four weeks from the date of the said reasoned order to be passed.
Since affidavits are not called for, the allegations made in the writ petition are deemed not to have been admitted by the respondents.
With the above observations and directions, this writ petition, WPA 29651 of 2024 stands disposed of, without any order as to costs.
Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be furnished expeditiously.
(Aniruddha Roy, J.)