IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE Before: The Hon’ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya WPA 28430 of 2022 Subrata Dey VS. The State of West Bengal & Ors. For the Petitioner : Mr. Joy Chakraborty ….. advocates For the Respondent No.2 : Mr. Sanjay Saha Mr. Raju Mondal …. advocates Reserved on : 30.04.2026 Judgment on : 13.07.2026 Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, J.:- 1. The order of the Additional District Magistrate and District Land and Land Rules Officer, Purba Burdwan dated 20.10.2022 is under challenge in this writ petition. 2. By the said order the prayer of the petitioner for extension of the lease period stood rejected. 3. A long term mining lease (for short “LTML”) for a period of 5 years being Deed no. 1649/2017 dated March 16, 2017 was granted in favour of the petitioner in respect of the schedule land being plot no. 1369 covering an area of 2.95 acres within Mouza Jhilera JL No. 036 under Mangalkote Police Station in the District of Purba Burdwan. 4. The petitioner alleges that he could not run his business of excavation of sand for a period of about 41 months due to vandalism of the local hooligans and lawlessness in the village as well as the lockdown imposed due to Covid-19 pandemic. The petitioner alleges that he could not run his business of excavation of sand for a substantial period for reasons beyond his control. For such reason petitioner submitted a representation dated 14.03.2022 before the concerned authority praying for extension of the lease period. 5. Alleging inaction on the part of the respondent authorities, petitioner filed a writ petition being WPA 21539 of 2022 which was disposed of by a co- ordinate bench by an order dated 20.09.2022 by giving liberty to the petitioner to submit a comprehensive representation and the Additional District Magistrate was directed to consider the application for extension of the lease agreement. Pursuant to the liberty granted by the co-ordinate bench, petitioner submitted a comprehensive representation on 22.09.2022. 6. The Additional District Magistrate passed an order dated 22.10.2022 rejecting the prayer of the petitioner for extension of the lease period. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this Court. 7. The learned advocate appearing for the petitioner contended that as per the approved mining plan and the environmental clearance the permissible maximum extraction limit for over a five year tenure was 52,51, 640 Cft. He contended that the total extraction by the petitioner of 24,05,467 Cft is less than half of the legally permissible limit. He further contended that on account of imposition of lockdown due to the onset of Covid-19 Pandemic, the petitioner could not carry out the business of extraction of sand between March 2020 and September 2021. He further contended that from the inception of the lease there was no proper access route to the site and there was violation/obstruction from local hooligans for which the petitioner could not carry on his business of extraction of sand for a substantial period of time. He contended that for reasons beyond the control of the petitioner the extraction activities could not be carried out for about 41 months. He, thus, submitted that in view of the Force Majeure clause incorporated in Clause 5 of Part IX of the lease deed, the petitioner is entitled to addition of the period during which the petitioner could not carry on the extraction activities. 8. Mr. Saha, learned advocate appearing for the respondent no. 2/Corporation raised an objection as to the maintainability of this writ petition in view of availability of an alternative remedy under Rule 51 of the West Bengal Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2016 (for short “the 2016 Concession Rules”). He further contended that prior to expiry of the instant lease the West Bengal Sand Mining Policy, 2021 came into effect and by virtue of the introduction of the said policy the second respondent was designated as the nodal agency for grant of sand mining lease. He further contended that Clause 6(iii) of the said policy specifically states that in existing leases the lease shall not be renewed and shall automatically be resumed and vested with the State Government upon its expiry. He submitted that the petitioner enjoyed the entire lease period of five years and has also excavated more than the minimum guaranteed production of sand per acre and the petitioner is, therefore, not entitled to any benefit under Clause 5, Part IX of the lease deed. Mr. Saha placed reliance upon a judgment of the Hon’ble Division Bench delivered on 27.11.2025 in MAT 1304 of 2025 in the case of Dilip Mondal vs. State of West Bengal and others in support of his contention that in the event the petitioner is entitled in law to claim damages for the stoppage of his mining operations, it would be open to the petitioner to approach the Civil Court having jurisdiction over the matter for such relief. 9. In reply the learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submitted that since the petitioner is claiming extension of the lease period as he was deprived of his right of excavation during the entire tenure of the lease deed which was executed prior to the coming into force of the 2021 Rules, the said rules cannot have any manner of application to the case on hand. He further contended that the petitioner is not seeking renewal or a fresh grant of lease under the 2021 Rules. 10. Heard the learned advocates for the parties and perused the materials placed. Page 4 of 9 11. With regard to the objection as to the maintainability of the writ petition raised by Mr. Saha, this Court finds that the co-ordinate bench by an order dated 02.05.2023 decided the issue of maintainability in favour of the petitioner with the observation that the impugned order was passed not in exercise of specific provision under the 2016 Concession Rules. After deciding the issue of maintainability in favour of the petitioner, directions for exchange of affidavits was passed by the co-ordinate bench by the self- same order. 12. Since the issue of maintainability was decided in favour of the petitioner by the aforesaid order and such order has not been challenged by the respondents, this Court is inclined to decide the instant writ petition on its merit. 13. Petitioner initially prayed for extension of the period of lease by a representation dated 14.03.2022. Thereafter, pursuant to the liberty granted by a co-ordinate bench, a comprehensive representation dated 22.09.2022 was submitted by the petitioner praying for extension of the period of lease. Petitioner alleges that there was no appropriate access route to the site and the mining activities had to be stopped due to imposition of lockdown on account of Covid-19 Pandemic. The petitioner claims that he was unable to continue with mining operations due to obstruction and hindrances caused by local people and hooligans. The petitioner prayed for extension of the mining lease for a period of 41 months. 14. The Additional District Magistrate, after considering the materials on record, recorded a factual finding that permission was granted to the petitioner to carry on his transportation from an alternate approach road and the concerned Block Land and Land Reforms Officer was also directed to lodge an FIR against one of the miscreants namely Ashraful Sk. and the same was also lodged and from time to time support was extended to the petitioner. The concerned Block Land and Land Reforms Officer submitted a report stating that from 24.05.2017 to 26.04.2021, a total of 11,20,900 Cft of challans have been issued in favour of the petitioner. After considering the said report the Additional District Magistrate returned a factual finding that the petitioner has completed his contractual obligation of minimum 60,000 Cft per acre and, thus, his extraction business was never hampered. 15. Petitioner did not dispute the said factual position. He, however, claims that during the entire five year lease period the total extraction of the petitioner was 24,05,467 Cft which is less than half of the legally permissible maximum extraction limit. 16. The question that arises for consideration is whether the petitioner is entitled to extension of the lease period for not being able to extract upto the maximum extraction limit. 17. Part IX of the lease deed contained the General Provisions relating to the said lease. 18. Part IX contains various clauses. Some of such clauses under Part IX enables the State Government to take action and make certain claims including imposition of penalty against the lessee/lessees for breach of any condition of the lease deed. 19. Clause 5 of Part IX, however, curtails/restricts the power of the State Government to make any claim against the lessee in case the fulfilment by the lessee of any of the terms and conditions of the lessee is delayed through Force Majeure. As per Clause 5, failure to fulfill such conditions by the lessee due to Force Majeure shall also not be deemed to be a breach of the lease. In such a case, the period of delay due to Force Majeure shall be added to the period of lease to enable the lessee to fulfill the terms and conditions of the lease deed. 20. In the case on hand the petitioner has prayed for extension as he claims that he could not carry out extraction activities for a substantial period due to reasons beyond his control. Page 6 of 9 21. For the purpose of deciding the prayer of the petitioner for extension of the lease it would be relevant to take note of some of the clauses of the lease deed for which the same are extracted hereinafter. PART-IX “3. Breach of any other conditions: In case the Lessee/Lessees or his/their/its transferees or assignees commit breach of any of the conditions specified in (clause 4 of Part III) and clauses 2,3,6, 10,26 and Part VII, then and in any such case the State Government shall give notice in writing to the Lessee/Lessees or his/their/its transferees or assignees, as the case may be, asking him/them/it to remedy the breach within thirty days from the date of the notice and if the breach is not remedied within such period, the State Government may determine the lease: Provided that nothing herein contained shall debar the State Government from enforcing any other right or remedy that the State Government may hake against the Lessee/Lessees or his/their/its transferees or assigns, under any other provisions herein contained and re-enter and take possession of the demised property and mines. Note: The portion within bracket to be omitted if this clause has been omitted in part III. 4. To pay penalty in case of breach: In case of breaches of the covenants and agreements by the Lessee/Lessees, on which the aforesaid notice has been given, the State Government in lieu of giving notice may impose such penalty not exceeding three times the amount of annual dead rent specified in clause 2 of Part V. 5. Failure to fulfill the terms of lease due to “Force Majeure”: Failure on the part of the Lessee/Lessees to fulfill any of the terms and conditions of this lease shall not give the State Government any claim against the Lessee/Lessees or be deemed a breach of this lease, in so far as such failure is considered by the said Government to arise from force majeure, and if through force majeure the fulfillment by the Lessee/Lessees of any of the terms and conditions of this lease be delayed, the period of such delay shall be added to the period fixed by this lease. In this clause the expression “force Majeure” means act of God, war, insurrection, riot, civil commotion, strike, earthquake, tide, storm tidal wave; flood lighting, explosion, fire and other happenings, which the Lessee/Lessees could not reasonably prevent or control. ” PART-VII “3. (b) The lessee shall extract and despatch minimum. 60,000 cft of sand (name of mineral) from the leasehold are area per annum per acre.” 22. Clause 3(b) under Part VII of the lease deed states that the lessee shall extract and dispatch minimum 60,000 Cft of sand from the leasehold area per acre. In case there is any breach on the part of the lessee to extract and dispatch the minimum 60,000 Cft of sand from the leasehold area per annum per acre it would be upon the State Government under Clause 3 of Part IX to give notice in writing to the lessee asking him to remedy the breach within 30 days from the date of the notice and if the breach is not remedied within such period the State Government may determine the lease. Clause 4 under Part IX also enables the State Government, in case of such breach to impose penalty in lieu of giving notice. Thus, if the lessee fails to extract and dispatch the minimum quantity of sand as mentioned in Clause 3b of Part VII, the State Government can make any claim against such lessee for such breach. 23. However, if the lessee fails to extract the said minimum quantity of sand as specified in Clause 3b of Part VII during the period of the lease through Force Majeure, it will not be deemed to be breach of the lease and the period of such delay shall be added to the period fixed by the lease. 24. The object behind addition of the period of delay caused through Force Majeure is only to save the lessee who failed to fulfill the terms and conditions of the lease against the coercive steps that the State Government could have taken but for Clause 5 of Part IX and to allow extension of time to enable the lessee to comply with the terms and conditions of the lease. The object of “Force Majeure” clause incorporated in the lease deed is not to allow extension of time by adding the period lost due to reasons which the lessee could not reasonably prevent or control except the events which fall under “Force Majeure”. 25. In the case on hand, it is not in dispute that the lessee extracted the minimum quantity of sand from the leasehold area as specifically mentioned in Clause 3b under Part VII. Thus, it cannot be said that there has been any breach on the part of the lessee to fulfill any of the terms and conditions of the lease. It is also not the case of the petitioner that the State Government has made any claim against the petitioner. For such reason, this Court holds that Clause V of Part IX cannot come to the aid of the petitioner. This Court is therefore, of the considered view that the petitioner is not entitled to extension of lease only for the reason that he could not extract upto the maximum permissible limit. 26. The petitioner alleges that he has suffered loss as he could not carry out the activities for a substantial period. It is the further case of the petitioner that he could not extract the maximum permissible limit. 27. The Hon’ble Division Bench in Dilip Mondal (supra) held that Force Majeure pertains to a natural calamity and stoppage of the mining operation even if due to unlawful action on the part of the respondent authorities which, though beyond the control of the lessee does not come within any of the supervening impossibilities or Force Majeure as contemplated under the force majeure clause. 28. The parties have entered into a contract for a specified period. It is well settled that the Court cannot rewrite the contract between the parties by extending the period of lease. In the event the petitioner claims to have suffered any loss due to any action on the part of the respondent authorities and is entitled in law to claim damages for such act of the respondent authorities, it would be open to the petitioner to claim appropriate reliefs before the competent Civil Court having jurisdiction in the matter. 29. After going through the order impugned this Court finds that the Additional District Magistrate after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner took into consideration the report of the Block Land and Land Reforms Officer and other relevant materials and rejected the prayer of the petitioner for extension of the lease period by assigning cogent reasons. There is no infirmity in the decision making process warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 30. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. 31. It is further made clear that the observations made hereinbefore are only for the purpose of deciding the instant writ petition and if the petitioner approaches the appropriate forum, such forum shall decide independently and in accordance with law without being swayed by the observations made hereinbefore. 32. There shall be, however, no order as to costs. 33. Urgent photostat certified copies, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance of all formalities. (HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA, J.)