S/L 10 28.03.2025 Court. No. 551 Suvayan WPA 2649 of 2025 (Assigned) Dinesh Agarwal Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors. Mr. Dinesh Agarwal …petitioner-in-person. Mr. Anirban Ray, Ld. G.P. Mr. Soumitra Bandyopadhyay Mr. Priyabrata Batabyal …for the State. 1. The report dated 26.03.2025 as submitted by Mr. Subhendu Kumar Mondal, WBSS, Assistant Secretary, Group – ‘A’ Service, Department of Industry, Commerce and Enterprises, Government of West Bengal as filed through the learned Advocate for the respondents/State is taken on record. 2. By filing the instant writ petition the writ petitioner has prayed for issuance of appropriate writ/writs against the respondents i.e., the State of West of Bengal and its functionaries for execution of the lease under major mineral in favour of the writ petitioner along with other ancillary reliefs. 3. In course of hearing attention of this Court is drawn to the judgment dated 12.09.2023 as passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No. 8238 of 2022 (The State of West Bengal & Ors. vs. M/s Chiranjilal (Mineral) Industries of Bagandih & Anr.). 4. For effective adjudication of the instant lis paragraph No. 22 of the said judgment dated 12.09.2023 2 is required to be looked into and the same is quoted hereinbelow in verbatim: “22. Accordingly, and for the reasons stated, we partly allow the present appeal and set aside the impugned judgment with a direction that the government of West Bengal will execute a mining lease for 20.87 acres of land in favour of the Respondent No. 1 – M/s. Chiranjilal (Mineral) Industries of Bagandih. The Writ Petition No. 20309 (W) of 2016 will be treated as allowed to the extent as indicated above. The claim of the Respondent No. 1 – M/s. Chiranjilal (Mineral) Industries of Bagandih towards the balance area for the grant of mining lease will be treated as rejected and dismissed. In the facts of the present case, there will be no order as to costs.” 5. It is submitted by the petitioner who appears in- person that the respondent authorities have not complied with the said judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India as passed on 12.09.2023. It is further submitted by the petitioner that the respondent authorities more specifically, the Additional Secretary to the Government of West Bengal, Industry, Commerce and Enterprises, Mines Branch of 4, Camac Street, Kolkata – 700016 under cover of his memo dated 11.12.2024 had put some riders for executing the mining lease for 20.87 acres of land in favour of the writ petitioner as directed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. It is submitted by the petitioner that putting of such riders are illogical. 6. Considering the submissions of the writ petitioner this Court on 04.03.2025 requested the learned Advocate 3 for the State to apprise this Court under which provisions of law the State has put such riders/conditions as enumerated in Clauses (a) to (h) of paragraph No. 5 of the earlier report dated 28.02.2025 which are identical to the riders as mentioned in the aforementioned memo dated 11.12.2024. 7. Pursuant to such quarry learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents/State draws attention of this Court to the report dated 26.03.2025 as submitted today. It is submitted on behalf of the respondents/State for due compliance of the aforementioned order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court the writ petitioner is required to observe the formalities as have been mentioned in the memo dated 11.12.2024 as well as in paragraph No. 5 of the report dated 26.03.2025 as submitted today. It is further submitted on behalf of the respondents/State that the submission of certain certificates and compliance in terms of the West Bengal Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 2016 on the part of the writ petitioner are necessary. 8. The writ petitioner who appears in-person disputes such contention. It has been contended by the writ petitioner that after taking into consideration of the entire matters, the Hon’ble Supreme Court directed the Government of West Bengal to execute a mining lease for 20.87 acres of land in favour of the writ petitioner and, therefore, the respondent authorities must not put any embargo in order to avoid execution of such lease. 4 9. It is further contended that the compliance of the alleged formalities have already been done by him on many occasions, at least twice and such factum was also considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court while passing the said judgment. 10. Considering the entire materials as placed before this Court, this Court finds it is the duty of the State to comply with the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in letter and spirit. 11. In view of such, while disposing the instant writ petition this Court directs the respondents/State and its functionaries who are respondents herein to forthwith comply with the order and judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 12.09.2023 as passed in connection with Civil Appeal No. 8238 of 2022 without insisting upon the writ petitioner for compliance of any further formalities. 12. Accordingly, the instant writ petition being WPA 2649 of 2025 is thus disposed of in the light of the aforementioned observation. 13. Urgent Xerox certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties upon compliance of all necessary formalities. (Partha Sarathi Sen, J.)