19.08.2026 sl.6 Ct No. 446 tkm WPA 20533 of 2026 Asgar Molla Vs State of West Bengal & Ors. Mr. T M Siddiqui, Sr. Adv. Ms. Richa Pramanik …for the petitioner Ms. Mamta Bhargava Ms. Moumita Dhar …for the State Mr. Sanjay Saha …for respondent nos. 9 & 10 1. The present writ petition has been filed primarily praying for the following relief: “A writ of and/or in the nature of mandamus setting aside and/or rescinding the e-auction notice dated 5th August, 2026 as uploaded in the portal with regard to auction for sale and disposal of 944419 CFT of excess sand lying in the composite stockyard of the petitioner at Mouza Morlai, within the jurisdiction of Md. Bazar PS in the district of Birbhum.” 2. Succinctly stated, the facts leading to presentation of the writ petition are that the petitioner participated in an e- auction conducted by the concerned respondent for allocation of riverbed mining in the Mayurakshi River and, upon emerging as a successful bidder, the District Committee for Minor Minerals allotted Plot No. 1322(P), corresponding to L.R. Plot No. 970/1322, J.L. No. 97, Mouza Girajpur, covering an area of 3.49 acres on the 2 riverbed of the Mayurakshi River in the district of Birbhum, being depicted as Sand-Block No. Bir/MD Bazar/Girajpur/249/2016. An award of contract was served upon him and an agreement was executed between the respondent and the petitioner. The petitioner was empowered to excavate 5,44,861 CFT of sand into his stock point. 3. However, the petitioner excavated sand in excess of the permissible quantity. Subsequently, the concerned respondent took symbolic possession of the said excess quantity of sand and thereafter initiated auction proceedings pursuant to a notice dated 5th August, 2026, issued by the respondent no. 4. 4. Subsequently, the concerned respondent took symbolic possession of the said excess sand and thereafter initiated an auction pursuant to a notice dated 5th August, 2026, issued by the respondent no. 4 for sale of the seized stock of sand. The notice dated 5th August, 2026 indicates that the intending bidders were asked to submit the requisite papers/documents from 6th August, 2026 to 14th August, 2026. 5. Mr. Siddiqui, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner, submits that, undisputedly, the petitioner is a lessee and the Sand-Block was allotted to the petitioner, pursuant to which an agreement was executed between the petitioner and the concerned respondent. He submits that the petitioner is still excavating from the said Sand-Block 3 and, prior to the monsoon, excavated sand in excess to enable the labourers and other staff to earn their livelihood. 6. Referring to an order dated 29th May, 2025, issued by the Additional Secretary to the Government of West Bengal, Department of Industries, Commerce and Enterprises, Mining Branch, he submits that the said order stipulates that, in case of excess excavation, preference is to be given to the lessee first and that he is to be given an opportunity to deposit the bid amount of the said Sand- Block plus 1.5 times the royalty or prevailing rate of the sand notified by the PWD, whichever is higher. In case of failure to deposit such amount, the authority can seize the excess sand and put the same up for auction. He submits that no such opportunity was given to the petitioner in terms of the order dated 29th May, 2025 and that, if any third party is allowed to excavate or collect the sand from the petitioner’s Sand-Block, there may be a possibility that such third party will take away the permissible stock of sand of the petitioner. 7. Therefore, He submits, that to enable the petitioner to avail himself of the benefits in terms of the order dated 29.05.2025, it would be appropriate to direct the concerned authority to cancel the auction already initiated in respect of the excess sand and to afford the petitioner an opportunity to deposit the amount in terms of the order dated 29th May, 2025. 4 8. He submits that, before issuance of the auction notice, he approached the authority with a representation, but despite receipt of such representation, no action has been taken thereon. This inaction prompted the petitioner to prefer the present writ petition. 9. Ms. Bhargava, learned Advocate for the State, produces a report along with certain documents and submits that the order dated 29th May, 2025 speaks about petty excess stock, whereas a huge quantity of sand has been excavated in the present case, and such excavation cannot be legalized upon acceptance of the penalty in terms of the order dated 29th May, 2025. 10. Mr. Saha, learned Advocate for the respondent nos. 9 and 10, submits that the respondent nos. 9 and 10 are authorized to supervise the portal and all other activities relating thereto. 11. Heard the learned Advocates for the respective parties and perused the materials on record. 12. Undisputedly, the petitioner is a lessee and, after following the tender process, the petitioner emerged as the highest bidder. An agreement was executed in his favour and, upon completion of all requisite formalities, the Sand- Block was allotted to him. However, he has excavated sand beyond the permissible limit. There is a provision in the order dated 29th May, 2025, to legalize such excavation of sand in excess upon acceptance of the penalty from the lessee, and the petitioner approached the concerned 5 authority before initiation of the tender pursuant to the notice dated 5.8.2026 and the petitioner is willing to pay the penalty in terms of the order dated 29.05.2025. 13. Lastly, Mr. Siddique submits that the petitioner will be satisfied if the matter is remitted to the concerned respondent with a direction to consider the petitioner’s representation, keeping in mind the stipulations contained in the order dated 29th May, 2025. 14. In such conspectus, this writ petition is disposed of by directing the respondent no. 3 to consider the petitioner’s representation dated 3rd July, 2026, in accordance with law, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, and keeping in mind the stipulations contained in the order dated 29th May, 2025. Till a decision is taken on the petitioner’s representation, the respondents shall not take any step or further step in respect of the auction process initiated pursuant to the notice dated 5.8.2026. 15. It is clarified that if the respondent finds that the petitioner’s claim deserves to be accepted, necessary follow- up action shall be taken. If the respondent no.3 finds that the petitioner’s claim is unjustified, a reasoned order shall be passed and the same shall be communicated to the petitioner forthwith. 16. It is clarified that this Court has not gone into the merits of the claim raised in the petitioner’s representation 6 dated 3rd July, 2026, and all points are kept open to be decided in accordance with law. (Partha Sarathi Chatterjee, J.)