Judgment : Sugato Majumdar, J. The instant writ appeal is filed by the Andaman & Nicobar Administration, the appellants herein, being aggrieved by the judgment dated 22/04/2024 passed by the Learned Single Bench in WPA/479/2023. Before discussions, it is necessary to look into the factual background of the case: i. A notification was published on 31/10/2019 by the then Deputy Commissioner of North & Middle Andaman District for issuance of quarry plan and site, in the Tehsil of Diglipur and Mayabunder. E-auction notice was issued on 04/11/2019 by the said Deputy Commissioner for extraction of minor minerals at various villages in district of North & Middle Andaman. The respondent participated in the e-auction process for the particular block of quarries at Block H, village Harinagar, tehsil Mayabunder comprising an area of 0.25 hector. The respondent made deposit of money as required. A letter was issued in this regard on 06/02/2020; a lease deed bearing No. 07 of 2020 dated 12/02/2020 was also executed. Quantity of quarry materials to be extracted was 12000 CBM (cubic meters). The respondent deposited earnest money and performance guarantee. The respondent had also to submit royalty amounts towards 12000 CBM of stones. ii. There were other persons who were successful bidders in respect of some other plots including one Naresh Halder. He became successful bidder for quarry in Block – B Suevey No.49/P comprising an area of .25 hector at Madhupur village, Diglipur. iii. A survey was made by Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur and a report was submitted dated 21/02/2020 wherein it was stated that the sites in question would allow only 5950 CBM stones to be extracted instead of 12000 CBM. E-auction notice and the lease deeds were for extraction of 12000 CMB quarry materials. iv. Covid-19 hit the Islands from the month of March, 2020 and impeded progress of quarry works; transit pass could not be issued disabling the respondent to carry out quarry works. v. The respondent, in this situation, made a representation dated 09/06/2020 to the then Chief Secretary, Andaman & Nicobar administration to permit him to quarry and extract 5950 CBM quarry materials and refund the excess amount of deposit since earlier deposit was made on the basis of extractable quantity of 12000 CBM. Since no response was made, the respondent approached this Court by filling a writ petition. Since no response was made, the respondent approached this Court by filling a writ petition. In the said Writ Petition No.141 of 2020, an order was passed on 21/10/2020 by Harish Tandon, J directing the Deputy Commissioner, North & Middle Andaman to consider the representation of the respondent within six weeks from the date of communication of the order. vi. In the meanwhile, another bidder Naresh Halder, as aforesaid, preferred another writ petition in this court being WP No. 017 of 2021, faced with the similar situation. This writ petition was disposed of in terms of the order dated 24/02/2021 with direction to the respondents therein to obtain the final report from the Dept. of Mining, IIT, Khargpur to ascertain the amount extractable minor minerals and to permit the said petitioner, Naresh Halder to extract that much of minor minerals from the respective site. It was further directed to complete the process within eight weeks. vii. It is the case of the respondent that although necessary order was passed in WP No.141 of 2020, filed by the respondent no action was taken on behalf of the administration, the appellants herein. At the same time, order dated 24/02/2021, passed in WP No.17 of 2021, filed by the said Naresh Halder, was immediately followed and executed. Acting on the order dated 24/02/2021, passed in WP No.17 of 2021, the Asst. Commissioner (HQ), North & Middle Andaman issued an order dated 11/05/2021 extending the lease of the said Naresh Halder in respect of Block-B, Madhupur site for a period of one year with immediate effect. But the respondent’s prayer, contained in the letter dated 09/06/2020 was kept pending and unanswered. viii. However, the respondent’s prayer was virtually rejected and became infructuous as the same block was subjected to a fresh e- auction notice dated 31/05/2021, published within a couple of weeks after extension of lease of the said Naresh Halder on 11/05/2021. On cancellation of that auction, a fresh auction notice dated 08.07.2021 was issued by the Deputy Commissioner, North & Middle Andaman including the instant quarry block. This auction notice dated 08.07.2021 was also cancelled. ix. The respondent moved a writ application WP No.140 of 2022 before this Court praying, inter alia, for direction to allow the respondent to execute quarry work from the allotted leased site and to refund the excess advance amount deposited by the respondent. This auction notice dated 08.07.2021 was also cancelled. ix. The respondent moved a writ application WP No.140 of 2022 before this Court praying, inter alia, for direction to allow the respondent to execute quarry work from the allotted leased site and to refund the excess advance amount deposited by the respondent. Order was passed by this Court on 29/04/2022 directing, inter alia, the Chief Secretary, Andaman & Nicobar Administration to hear and dispose of the representation of the respondent pending before him passing reasoned order as to whether the respondent and the said Naresh Halder deserved equal treatment or not. Such order was to be passed within one month from the date of communication of the order. In terms of the order dated 21.10.2020, Deputy Commissioner North and Middle Andaman was directed to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 09.06.2020 and to dispose of the same within six weeks from the date of communication. x. After hearing, the Chief Secretary passed an order dated 11/06/2022 observing, inter alia, that after analyzing all the facts it appeared that both the cases deserved equal treatment from the point of view of rule of law, equity and fairness. The Dy. Commissioner of North & Middle Andaman was directed to see all the records within fifteen days and satisfy and ascertain why the case of the respondent should not be treated at par with that of Naresh Halder. xi. The respondent immediately moved to the Deputy Commissioner of North & Middle Andaman. It is the case of the respondent that deliberate delays were made and the file of the respondent was not touched upon. On 04/07/2022 the respondent was called for hearing. He was told that nothing would be done in this regard. Direction was given by the administration to the Dy. Commissioner of North & Middle Andaman to comply with the order of the Chief Secretary. The then Asst. Secretary (Revenue) issued an order dated 24/08/2022 to the Dy. Commissioner of North & Middle Andaman to furnish compliance report. xii. Order No. 509 dated 02.02.2023 was passed by the Deputy Commissioner, North & Middle Andaman recommending rejection of the representation of the respondent. It was observed that the auction was concluded in the year 2019-20 and was valid only for one year after signing the lease agreement. Since then, the auction period as well as the lease agreement had expired. Order No. 509 dated 02.02.2023 was passed by the Deputy Commissioner, North & Middle Andaman recommending rejection of the representation of the respondent. It was observed that the auction was concluded in the year 2019-20 and was valid only for one year after signing the lease agreement. Since then, the auction period as well as the lease agreement had expired. Another point noted was that base price for auction of quarry blocks had expired and there was no current base price, difference cannot be calculated. Allowing extraction of quarry materials would cause loss to public exchequer. xiii. The respondent challenged the order No. 509 dated 02.02.2023 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, North & Middle Andaman. The Learned Single Judge set aside the said order No. 509 dated 02.02.2023 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, by the impugned judgment dated 22.04.2024. It was directed that the lease as extended in case of Naresh Halder should also be extended in case of the respondent applying the latest base price subject to adjustment of the amount already paid by the petitioner. The judgment passed by the Learned Single Judge is challenged herein. Mr. Chakraborty, Learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant i.e. the State Authority made manifold arguments. Firstly, according to him, the impugned order No. 509 dated 02.02.2023 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, North & Middle Andaman is a reasoned order setting out the details why extension of lease could not be allowed to the respondent. Secondly, it was argued that the respondent neither has any vested right in the mines and minerals, nor has any legitimate claim or legal right in any quarry work. Lease agreement did not entitle the respondent to get the same renewed. Clause-17 of the Lease Agreement specifically stipulated that in case of expiry or premature termination, quarry materials lying at the quarry site, would be absolutely appropriated by the Authority. Grants of mining and quarry leases are guided by paramount consideration of public interest. No private party can claim any legal or vested rights in any quarry work or a mining lease. Mr. Chakraborty relied upon the following decisions: i) M.P Ram Mohan Raja Vs. State of Tamilnadu [(2007) 6 SCC 78 (Para-13)], ii) State of Kerala Vs. Kerala Rare Earch & Minerals Ltd. [ (2016) 6 SCC 323 (Para-32)], iii) Monnet Ispat & Energy Ltd. Vs. Union of India [ (2012) 11 SCC 1 , (Para-215)]. Mr. Chakraborty relied upon the following decisions: i) M.P Ram Mohan Raja Vs. State of Tamilnadu [(2007) 6 SCC 78 (Para-13)], ii) State of Kerala Vs. Kerala Rare Earch & Minerals Ltd. [ (2016) 6 SCC 323 (Para-32)], iii) Monnet Ispat & Energy Ltd. Vs. Union of India [ (2012) 11 SCC 1 , (Para-215)]. Thirdly, Mr. Chakraborty argued that base prices of the two e-auctions are widely different. If the respondent is allowed to quarry at the old rate, much lower than the new one, there would be loss in government revenue. This is another reason for rejection of the claim of the respondent, according to Mr. Chakraborty. Fourthly, Mr.Chakraborty argued that, even if it is assumed that the respondent suffered any damage or detriment, his remedy lies in filing a civil suit. It is for the civil court to consider and decide all the issues involved herein. The respondent cannot seek specific performance of a contract invoking extraordinary writ jurisdiction of the High Court. Learned Single Judge failed to appreciate this point in passing the impugned judgment, according to Mr. Chakraborty. The last limb of argument of Mr. Chakraborty was that, the Learned Single Judge did not appreciate that there is an alternative efficacious remedy of revision under Rule 42 of the Andaman & Nicobar Islands Minor Minerals Rules, 2012 which the respondent should resort to. Per contra Mr. Kabir, Learned Advocate appearing for the respondent firstly argued that no person should be prejudiced by an act of Court (actus curiae neminem gravabit). This Court, on a number of occasions, passed directions to the Administration to consider the case of the respondent. The Chief Secretary in his letter dated 11.06.2022 expressed the view that the respondent and Naresh Halder deserve equal treatment from the point of view of rule of law, equity and fairness; the Deputy Commissioner was given fifteen days time frame to consider the case; but the Deputy Commissioner passed the impugned order No. 509 dated 02.02.2023 after lapse of more than six months when the validity of the original auction had already expired. According to Mr. Kabir, the Deputy Commissioner of North and Middle Andaman acted with biasness in as much as he allowed auction period to expire and then rejected the representation of the respondent on that ground. According to Mr. According to Mr. Kabir, the Deputy Commissioner of North and Middle Andaman acted with biasness in as much as he allowed auction period to expire and then rejected the representation of the respondent on that ground. According to Mr. Kabir, it is a ploy adopted by the Deputy Commissioner to deprive the respondent of his legitimate right and claim. Secondly, Mr. Kabir argued that this is a text book case of infringement of Article 14 of the Constitution of India where two persons, similarly situated, are treated differently having no reasonable nexus of such differentiation. Therefore, according to Mr. Kabir, it is a fit case where extra ordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court should be invoked and the Learned Single Judge in exercising such jurisdiction rightly corrected the injustice meted out to the respondent. Alternative remedy, according to Mr. Kabir, is not a bar to invoking the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India where violation of fundamental rights is in issue or where uncontrolled, colourable, exercise of executive power is involved. Mr. Kabir relied upon the following decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India : i. Godrej Sara Lee Ltd., AIR 2023 SC 781 . ii. Harbanslal Sahnia, AIR 2003 SC 2120 . iii. Ram and Shyam Co., AIR 1985 SC 1147 . iv. Radha Krishnan Industries, AIR 2021 SC 2114 . We have heard rival submissions. It is germane to address the issue of availability of an alternative forum first, for the issue goes to the root of the jurisdiction of this Court, being existential in nature. Any breach of contract or non performance of the same can of course be subject matter of civil suit in an action for breach of contract, or specific performance or otherwise. In the case in hand allegations are infringement of fundamental rights, biased and differential treatment by the Government Authorities without any reason and making differential treatment to similarly situated persons without any rationality. The issue assumes a sterner face, therefore, to be treated by a constitutional court. In Ram and Shyam Co., ( AIR 1985 SC 1147 ), it was observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India : “Ordinarily it is true that the court has imposed a restraint in its own wisdom on its exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 where the party invoking the jurisdiction has an effective, adequate alternative remedy. In Ram and Shyam Co., ( AIR 1985 SC 1147 ), it was observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India : “Ordinarily it is true that the court has imposed a restraint in its own wisdom on its exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 where the party invoking the jurisdiction has an effective, adequate alternative remedy. More often, it has been expressly stated that the rule which requires the exhaustion of alternative remedies is a rule of convenience and discretion rather than rule of law. At any rate it does not oust the jurisdiction of the Court. In fact in the very decision relied upon by the High Court in State of U.P. v. Mohammad Nooh [ AIR 1958 SC 86 : 1958 SCR 595 : 1958 SCJ 242 ] it is observed “that there is no rule, with regard to certiorari as there is with mandamus, that it will lie only where there is no other equally effective remedy”. It should be made specifically clear that where the order complained against is alleged to be illegal or invalid as being contrary to law, a petition at the instance of person adversely affected by it, would lie to the High Court under Article 226 and such a petition cannot be rejected on the ground that an appeal lies to the higher officer or the State Government. An appeal in all cases cannot be said to provide in all situations an alternative effective remedy keeping aside the nice distinction between jurisdiction and merits. “ In Godrej Sara Lee Ltd. v. E&TOCAA [2023 SCC OnLine SC 95] writ court’s jurisdiction was extensively considered by the Supreme Court of India. There is a difference between entertainability and maintainability of a writ petition which was discussed in this judgment: It was observed: “4. Before answering the questions, we feel the urge to say a few words on the exercise of writ powers conferred by article 226 of the Constitution having come across certain orders passed by the High Courts holding writ petitions as "not maintainable" merely because the alternative remedy provided by the relevant statutes has not been pursued by the parties desirous of invocation of the writ jurisdiction. The power to issue prerogative writs under article 226 is plenary in nature. Any limitation on the exercise of such power must be traceable in the Constitution itself. The power to issue prerogative writs under article 226 is plenary in nature. Any limitation on the exercise of such power must be traceable in the Constitution itself. Profitable reference in this regard may be made to article 329 and ordainments of other similarly worded articles in the Constitution. Article 226 does not, in terms, impose any limitation or restraint on the exercise of power to issue writs. While it is true that exercise of writ powers despite availability of a remedy under the very statute which has been invoked and has given rise to the action impugned in the writ petition ought not to be made in a routine manner, yet, the mere fact that the petitioner before the High Court, in a given case, has not pursued the alternative remedy available to him/it cannot mechanically be construed as a ground for its dismissal. It is axiomatic that the High Courts (bearing in mind the facts of each particular case) have a discretion whether to entertain a writ petition or not. One of the self-imposed restrictions on the exercise of power under Article 226 that has evolved through judicial precedents is that the High Courts should normally not entertain a writ petition, where an effective and efficacious alternative remedy is available. At the same time, it must be remembered that mere availability of an alternative remedy of appeal or revision, which the party invoking the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 has not pursued, would not oust the jurisdiction of the High Court and render a writ petition "not maintainable". In a long line of decisions, this court has made it clear that availability of an alternative remedy does not operate as an absolute bar to the "maintainability" of a writ petition and that the rule, which requires a party to pursue the alternative remedy provided by a statute, is a rule of policy, convenience and discretion rather than a rule of law. Though elementary, it needs to be restated that "entertainability" and "maintainability" of a writ petition are distinct concepts. The fine but real distinction between the two ought not to be lost sight of. The objection as to "maintainability" goes to the root of the matter and if such objection were found to be of substance, the courts would be rendered incapable of even receiving the lis for adjudication. The fine but real distinction between the two ought not to be lost sight of. The objection as to "maintainability" goes to the root of the matter and if such objection were found to be of substance, the courts would be rendered incapable of even receiving the lis for adjudication. On the other hand, the question of "entertainability" is entirely within the realm of discretion of the High Courts, writ remedy being discretionary. A writ petition despite being maintainable may not be entertained by a High Court for very many reasons or relief could even be refused to the petitioner, despite setting up a sound legal point, if grant of the claimed relief would not further public interest. Hence, dismissal of a writ petition by a High Court on the ground that the petitioner has not availed the alternative remedy without, however, examining whether an exceptional case has been made out for such entertainment would not be proper.” The Court also referred to the following excerpts of Whirlpool Corpn. v. Registrar of Trade Marks, [ (1998) 8 SCC 1 ]: “15. Under Article 226 of the Constitution, the High Court, having regard to the facts of the case, has a discretion to entertain or not to entertain a writ petition. But the High Court has imposed upon itself certain restrictions one of which is that if an effective and efficacious remedy is available, the High Court would not normally exercise its jurisdiction. But the alternative remedy has been consistently held by this Court not to operate as a bar in at least three contingencies, namely, where the writ petition has been filed for the enforcement of any of the Fundamental Rights or where there has been a violation of the principle of natural justice or where the order or proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction or the vires of an Act is challenged. There is a plethora of case-law on this point but to cut down this circle of forensic whirlpool, we would rely on some old decisions of the evolutionary era of the constitutional law as they still hold the field.” Reiteration of the rhetoric of alternative forum cannot be a masquerade to hide the rugged skin of prejudice and administrative biasness. A constitutional court cannot sit idle with closed-door conscience to allow infringements of fundamental rights to sway large. A constitutional court cannot sit idle with closed-door conscience to allow infringements of fundamental rights to sway large. A serious issue is involved herein where two persons similarly situated are treated differently without reasonable nexus. We, therefore, feel it apt to conclude that writ remedy is available to the respondent. It was also argued by Mr. Chakraborty that none has any vested right in mines and minerals. But, however ingenuous the argument may be, the same cannot be used as an excuse. This ground cannot be used to allow preferential treatments. Coming to the case in hand, we noticed certain factual aspects. Quarry leases were granted to both the respondent as well as to the said Naresh Halder. There was long dormancy in issue of transit pass and execute the respective quarry works because of sudden intervention of Covid-19. Subsequently, pursuant to the order dated 24/02/2021 passed by this Court in WP No.17 of 2021, the Asst. Commissioner (HQ), North & Middle Andaman issued an order dated 11/05/2021 extending the lease of the said Naresh Halder in respect of Block-B, Madhupur site for a period of one year with immediate effect. But no step was taken to extend the lease of the respondent that although necessary order was passed in WP No.141 of 2020, filed by the respondent. No action was taken on behalf of the administration. Our attention was drawn to the fact that the lease of Naresh Halder was extended on 11/05/2021 and within a couple of weeks a fresh e-auction notice was published by the appellants on 31/05/2021 in respect of the same block, subject matter of the present writ petition, which, in effect, made the order of this Court as well as the claim of the respondent infructuous and frustrated. Reason for such a promptitude is also not known. In spite of a time frame stipulated by the Chief Secretary, claim and plea of the respondent was allowed to expire with passage of time. There is prima facie observation of the Chief Secretary that both the persons should be treated similarly and fairly; a prima facie express opinion that both cases deserve equal treatment and recommendation was made to the Deputy Commissioner, as mentioned above. The Deputy Commissioner, North & Middle Andaman took refuge to certain grounds to recommend rejection of the claim of the respondent, which are manifestly created. The Deputy Commissioner, North & Middle Andaman took refuge to certain grounds to recommend rejection of the claim of the respondent, which are manifestly created. Administrative inconveniences, as stated in the impugned order of the Deputy Commissioner were created as the materials on records show. It is manifest from the whole conspectus of facts that the Deputy Commissioner, North & Middle Andaman acted in a biased manner, in colorable exercise of power not only with blind eyes but with a deliberate design and meted out differential treatment to the respondent without any reasonable nexus. We are of view that sudden spurt of action of the Deputy Commissioner, North & Middle Andaman, in issuing fresh e-auction notice in respect of the same quarry block of the respondent, immediately after extension of lease of the said Naresh Halder, allowing the plea of the respondent kept pending even though a time frame was made by the Chief Secretary and the allied acts are highly discriminatory, prejudicial, and biased. This is glaring example of biasness and colorable exercises of power. We are also of the view that the Learned Single Judge considered the issues thoroughly and passed a well reasoned order. Learned Single Judge rightly addressed the issues and pointed out that latest base price shall be abide subject to adjustment of amount already paid to the petitioner. We are conscious of the fact that this is an intra Court appeal. In such appeals, the appeal court does not interfere only because it may have a different view, if the conclusion reached by the Learned Single Judge is an eminently plausible one, supported by cogent reasons and following the established principles of law in the facts of the case. We are of considered opinion that the impugned order passed by the Learned Single Judge calls for no interference. The instant Appeal is disposed of along with all pending applications. MAT/20/2024, IA No.CAN/1/2024 accordingly, disposed of. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Urgent Xerox certified copy this judgement be supplied to the learned Counsel appearing for the respective parties upon compliance of usual formalities. I agree, Arijit Banerjee, J.