1 In the High Court at Calcutta Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction Appellate Side Present: The Hon’ble Justice Partha Sarathi Sen WPA 23649 of 2026 Probhat Barui v. The State of West Bengal & Ors. For the Petitioner : Mr. Sk. Md. Galib, Mr. Pallav Chatterjee, Mr. Ooiseeroop Sinha, Mr. Monajit Chakraborti, Mr. Apurba Kolya, For the State : Mr. Asim Hati, Ms. Renesa Dey, For the Respondent Mr. Sanjay Saha, No. 5 Mr. Raju Mondal, Heard on and Judgment on : 14-09-2026 Partha Sarathi Sen, J.:- 1. The subject matter of instant writ petition is the Memo dated 14.08.2026 as issued by the respondent no. 9 authority whereby and whereunder the said respondent no. 9 demanded a sum of Rs.2,81,44,706/- in connection with the auction I.D: 2018_WB_653 of sand block Galsi- II/Gopalpur/321(P)/B from the writ petitioner. For effective adjudication of the instant writ petition, some relevant facts leading to the filing of the instant writ petition are required to be dealt with and those are under:- I. The respondent no.9 authority had floated a notice inviting e- auction (‘NIE in short’) dated 11.01.2018 for grant of mining 2 of lease of sand in respect of sand block being GALSI- II/GOPALPUR/321(P)/B located in plot No.s 321(P). in Mouza –GOPALPUR J.L. No.87, P.S. GALSI District Purba Bardhaman over an area of 12.28 acres (4.97 hectares). II. The writ petitioner is found to be successful bidder in respect of said NIE and accordingly on 23.06.2018 the letter of intent (LOI) was issued to him as per the existing Rules. The writ petitioner submitted a mining plan with the respondent authorities whereunder in Clause 7.2.1 he had has given the production details as per following table:- Year Geological reserve In m3 Production in m3 Balance deposit in m3 Replenishment in m3 1st 149100 129600 19500 129600 2nd 149100 129600 19500 129600 3rd 149100 129600 19500 129600 4th 149100 129600 19500 129600 5th 149100 129600 19500 129600 III. Subsequently on 14.07.2022 a lease deed was executed in favour of the writ petitioner by the respondent State for carrying out mining activity in the aforementioned plot of land which was registered on 12.08.2022. From the internal page 22 of the said deed of lease dated 14.07. 2022 it would reveal that it was agreed by and between the lessor and lessee that the lessee would extract and despatch minimum 3 1,29,600 cubic meter of sand from the leasehold area per annum. IV. However, from the environmental clearance report as issued by SEIAA dated 24.07.2025 the total minerable reserves are as per following table:- V. It is undisputed that despite execution of the dead of lease, the lessee cannot extract more than total minerable reserve as has been mentioned in the environmental clearance report, a copy of which has been annexed at page 150-159 of the instant writ petition. VI. Subsequently, the respondent no. 2 authority published a notification dated 18.06.2026 whereby and whereunder the Government reserved has right to recover the proportionate excess amount, in the event, the quantity mentioned in the environmental clearance that is ‘revised quantity’ exceeds the Year Total Area (Ha) Thickness (Ha) Replenishment Rate % Minerable Reserve (Cum) 1 4.27 2.88 100% 122976 2 4.27 2.16 75% 92232 3 4.27 2.16 75% 92232 4 4.27 2.16 75% 92232 5 4.27 2.16 75% 92232 TOTAL MINERABLE RESERVE (Cu.M) 491904 TOTAL MINERABLE RESERVE (C.Ft.) 1.74 cr cft 4 ‘base quantity’ as has been mentioned in the tender document. VII. Based on such notification dated 18.06.2026 and pursuant to the impugned Memo dated 14.08.2026, the respondent 9 authority demanded a sum or Rs. 2,81,44,706 from the writ petitioner which is challenged in the instant writ petition. 2. At the time of hearing, Mr. Galib, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner at the very outset, draws the attention of this Court to page no. 116 of the instant writ petition being internal page no. 22 of the registered deed of lease dated 14.07.2026. 3. It is submitted that from the relevant Clause B of page 22 it would reveal that it was agreed by and between the lesssor and lessee that the present petitioner being lessee would extract and despatch minimum 1,29,600 cubic meter of sand from the leasehold area per month and in 5 years he would be able to extract 6,48,000 cubic meter minor minerals. 4. Drawing attention to the internal page 2 of the environmental clearance report it is submitted by Mr. Galib that as per said environmental clearance report dated 24.07.2025 it would reveal that the writ petitioner would be entitled to extract total minerable reserve to the extent of 4,91,904 cubic meter equivalent to 1.74 crore cubic feet during the entire base period which is much less than the amount as has been mentioned in the deed of lease vis-à-vis the tender document which the respondent authority described as ‘base quantity’. 5. It is submitted that the respondent no. 2 authority without considering the aforementioned factual aspect and by the strength of the notification 5 dated 18.06.2026 failed to visualize that as per environmental clearance report, the writ petitioner is entitled to extract 4,91,904 cubic meter of sand equivalent to 1.74 crore cubic feet of sand instead of the base quantity being 6,48,000 cubic meter which is much less and, therefore, arithmetical calculation as made by the respondent no. 2 authority in the impugned notification dated 14.08.2026 is palpably wrong and, therefore, the demand as made by the respondent no. 9 authority for a sum of Rs. 2,81,44,706 is not sustainable in the eye of law. 6. In this regard reliance is placed upon the judgment and order dated 02.07.2026 as passed by this Court in WPA 14231 of 2026 (Raju Mandal Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors.) whereby and whreunder this Court in a similar situation restrained the respondent authorities from claiming any further amount from the writ petitioner therein in the event, the writ petitioner therein extracts the quantity of sand as mentioned in the registered deed of sale. 7. Mr. Galib, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner submits before this Court that the present writ petitioner’s footing is better than the footing of the writ petitioner in WPA 14231 of 2026 inasmuch as the writ petitioner is willing to extract 4,91,904 cubic meter of sand equivalent to 1.74 crore cubic feet from the leased out sand block in 5 years which is much less than the base quantity as has been mentioned in the tender document, LOI and the deed of lease. 8. Mr. Galib thus, submits that this is a fit case for allowing the instant writ petition. 6 9. Mr. Saha, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent Corporation submits before this Court that in view of the ratio as decided in the case in WPA 14231 of 2026 by this Court, the respondent authorities are duty bound to issue excavation permit and challan for excavation of sand from the aforementioned sand block to the writ petitioner in the event the writ petitioner does not exceed his limit of excavation as has been mentioned in the environmental clearance report dated 24.07.2025. 10. Learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent State while placing his reliance upon instruction as filed before this Court which is taken on record supported the impugned order. 11. On careful consideration of the entire materials as placed before this Court and after hearing the learned advocate appearing for the contending parties it appears to this Court that in an identical case this Court while disposing of WPA 14231 of 2026 (Raju Mandal Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors.) considered the scope of the notification dated 18.06.2026 a copy of which has been annexed at page 160 of the instant writ petition and while deciding the said writ petition in the light of the said notification dated 18.6.2026, this Court come to a finding that the respondent authorities, more specifically the respondent no. 7 authority therein cannot claim any further amount from the writ petitioner in the said writ petition in the event he extracts sand to the extent as mentioned in the registered deed of lease as has been executed by and between the said lessor/lessee. 7 12. As rightly pointed out by Mr. Galib, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner that the total minerable reserve as has been depicted in the environmental clearance report dated 24.07.2025 is 4,91,904 cubic meter in 5 years which is equivalent, 1.74 crore cubic feet in 5 years which is admittedly less than the base amount and/or the amount as mentioned in the deed of lease which is 1,29,600 cubic meter per annum and 6,48000 cubic meter in 5 years which is equivalent to 2,28,83,904 cubic feet which is admittedly much less than the minerable reserve (1.74 crore cft) as has been mentioned in the environmental clearance report dated 24.07.2025. 13. In view of such, this Court finds no justification on the part of the respondent no. 9 authorities to issue the impugned memo dated 14.08.2026 demanding a sum of Rs. 2, 81,44,706/- from the writ petitioner. 14. Accordingly, impugned Memo no. 521/DL & LRO-PRBDN/MM/26 dated 14.08.2026 stands hereby quashed. 15. It is thus directed that the respondent no. 9 and respondent no. 5 authorities shall not cause any hindrance to the writ petitioner to execute the work of excavation in the aforementioned sand block in the event the writ petitioner carries out his mining activity within the limit as mentioned in the environmental clearance report as mentioned hereinabove till the lifetime of the aforementioned registered lease of deed. 16. With the aforementioned observation the writ petition stands disposed of. 8 17. Before parting with, it is, however, made clear that in the event, the writ petitioner is found to be excavated more amount of minor minerals i.e. the sand as have been mentioned in the said registered Lease of Deed, the respondent authorities are at liberty to take appropriate legal action, against the writ petitioner in accordance with law. 18. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be furnished to the parties expeditiously upon compliance of all legal formalities.” (Partha Sarathi Sen, J.) Susanta [AR(C)]