19.08.2026 Ct. No.446 Sl. No.4 akd W. P. A. 20036 of 2026 [Kanchan Mukherjee -Vs- The State of West Bengal & Ors.] Mr. Monajit Chakraborti … … for the petitioner Mr. Sanjay Saha … … for respondent no. 5 Mr. Asim Hati Ms. Soma Gayen … … 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 be issued directing the respondent authorities, more particularly the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 to allow the petitioner to deposit 1/3rd of the Bid amount in respect of Sand Block No. 0117DR017, Auction ID : 2016-DMBWB- 218, and to proceed further. 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. 8,18,20,000/-. The petitioner participated in the tender process in 2017 and emerged as the highest bidder. Upon being successful, he was asked to deposit 1/3rd of the bid amount within fifteen days from the date of issuance of the award of contract, in terms of Rule 10(1) of the West Bengal Minor 2 Mineral (Auction) Rules, 2016 (in short, ‘2016 Rules’). The petitioner did not deposit the said amount. 4. In 2017, the District Magistrate, Bankura, issued a Letter of Intent dated 7th April, 2017, in favour of the petitioner, asking him to initiate follow-up action, including obtaining the statutory clearances, for getting the mining lease executed in his favour. 5. Subsequently, the petitioner made a representation dated 5th March, 2026, to the respondent no. 2, seeking permission to deposit the entire bid amount at one time. 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. He submits that the petitioner can now deposit the entire bid amount along with the interest accrued thereon in terms of Rule 12 of the 2016 Rules. Lastly, he submits that he would be satisfied if the matter is remitted to the concerned authority with a direction to consider the petitioner’s representation. 7. Mr. Asim Hati, learned Advocate appearing for the State/respondents, submits that the bid value, which was determined in 2017, 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. 3 8. Mr. Sanjay Saha, learned Advocate appearing for the respondent no. 5, adopts the submissions advanced on behalf of the State/respondents. However, in course of hearing, he submits that, in the event the concerned authority is directed to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 5th March, 2026, the respondent no. 5 shall have no objection thereto. 9. Mr. Hati concurs with the submission made by Mr. Saha and submits that, in the event the concerned authority is directed to consider the representation of the petitioner, he too shall have no objection. 10. In view of such submission made on behalf of the parties hereto, the writ petition is disposed of by directing the respondent no. 4 to consider the petitioner’s representation dated 5th March, 2026, in accordance with law, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and the respondent no. 5 herein, within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 11. 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. 12. It is clarified that this Court has not gone into the merits of the issues raised by the petitioner in his representation dated June 23, 2026. 13. With these observations and directions, WPA 20036 of 2026 is disposed of. 4 14. There shall be no order as to costs. 15. 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.)