19.08.2026 Ct. No.446 Sl. No.3 akd W. P. A. 17724 of 2026 [Tarun Mukherjee -Vs- The State of West Bengal & Ors.] Mr. Monajit Chakraborti … … for the petitioner Mr. Sanjay Saha … for respondent nos.5 & 6 Mr. Amit Baran Dash Mr. Sailen Naskar … … for the State 1. Affidavit-of-service filed in Court today is taken on record. 2. The present writ petition has been preferred primarily praying for the following reliefs :- a) A writ in the nature of Mandamus do issue thereby setting aside the action of the Respondent authorities in terminating the contract and refunding the EMD as well as Bid Security, as communicated vide letter dated 28.02.2022 and directing the respondent authorities more particularly the Respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 to allow the petitioner to deposit the Bid amount in respect of Auction ID : 2019-WB-1331 with applicable interest. 3. Briefly stated, the facts leading to the presentation of the instant writ petition are that the respondent no. 4 issued an auction notice inviting tenders from intending bidders for a mining lease of a Sand-Block, and the bid value was determined at Rs. 6,53,53,000/-. The petitioner participated in the tender process in 2019 and emerged as the highest bidder. Upon being successful, he was asked to deposit 1/3rd of the bid amount 2 within fifteen days from the date of issuance of the award of contract, in terms of Rule 10(1) of the West Bengal Minor Mineral (Auction) Rules, 2016 (in short, ‘2016 Rules’). The petitioner did not deposit the said amount. 4. In 2022, again an opportunity was given to the petitioner by the respondent no. 4, vide notice dated 28th February, 2022, to deposit 1/3rd of the bid amount in terms of Rule 10(1) of the 2016 Rules, within seven days from the date of receipt of the said notice, incorporating a default clause that, in case of failure to deposit the said amount, the petitioner’s claim as the H-1 bidder over the said Sand-Block would not be considered and the Earnest Money Deposit (EMD) and Bid Security would subsequently be forfeited. 5. Subsequently, by submitting a letter dated 23rd June, 2026 to the District Magistrate, Bankura, the petitioner made a prayer to allow him to deposit the entire bid amount at one time, so that the concerned authority could grant the Long-Term Mining Lease in his favour. However, despite receipt of such representation from the petitioner, no effective steps have been taken by the authority concerned. This inaction prompted the petitioner to prefer the instant writ petition. 6. Mr. Monajit Chakraborti, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner, referring to certain medical documents annexed to the writ petition, submits that the petitioner was suffering from several ailments and, due to such physical indisposition, he could not deposit 1/3rd of the bid amount within the time specified in the tender as well as in the notice dated 28th February, 2022. He submits that the petitioner can now deposit 3 the entire bid amount along with the interest accrued thereon in terms of Rule 12 of the 2016 Rules. 7. Mr. Amit Baran Dash, learned Advocate appearing for the State/respondents, submits that the bid value, which was determined in 2019, cannot be the bid value if it is fixed today, i.e., in 2026. The petitioner is claiming that the concerned authority be directed to accept the bid value as per the 2016 Rules. 8. Mr. Sanjay Saha, learned Advocate appearing for the respondent nos. 5 and 6, adopts the submissions made on behalf of the State/respondents and submits that, if the concerned authority is directed to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 23rd June, 2026, the respondent nos. 5 and 6 shall have no objection thereto. 9. In view of such submission made on behalf of the respondent nos. 5 and 6, the writ petition is disposed of by directing the respondent no. 4 to consider the petitioner’s representation dated 23rd June, 2026, in accordance with law, after affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner and the respondent nos. 5 and 6 herein, within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 10. If the respondent no. 4 finds that the petitioner’s claim deserves to be accepted, necessary follow-up action shall be taken. If the respondent no. 4 finds that the petitioner’s claim is unjustified, a reasoned order shall be passed and the same shall be communicated to the petitioner forthwith. The entire exercise shall be carried out within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 4 11. It is clarified that this Court has not gone into the merits of the issues raised by the petitioner in his representation dated 23rd June, 2026. 12. With these observations and directions, WPA 17724 of 2026 is disposed of. 13. There shall be no order as to costs. 14. Let urgent Photostat certified copy of this order be made available to the parties, if applied for, upon compliance of usual formalities. (Partha Sarathi Chatterjee, J.)