21.09.2026 Sl. No. 10 (DL) Ct.No.19 (Susanta) (Bench I.D. 266052) WPA 4094 of 2026 Anup Kumar Maji Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors. Mr. Khairul Alam, …for the petitioner. Mr. Bikah Ranjan Bhattacharya, Ld. Sr. Adv., Ms. Subhasri Chaterjee, … for the private respondent. Mr. Siddhartha Sankar Roy, Mr. Chiranjit Pal, …for the State. Mr. Sanjay Saha, Mr. Raju Mondal, … for the Respondent No. 5. 1. The writ petitioner, the respondent State, the respondent Corporation and the private respondent are represented by their respective learned advocates. 2. By filing the instant writ petition, the writ petitioner has prayed for issuance of appropriate writ of prohibition against the respondent authorities commanding them not to issue mining challan to the private respondent. 3. At the time of hearing, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner draws the attention of this Court to the orders as passed by the jurisdictional DL&LRO in Misc. Case no. 01 of 2025 the copies of which has been annexed at page nos. 46-51 of the instant writ petition. 2 4. It is argued that in the said Misc. Case the said jurisdictional DL&LRO declined to shift the sand mining plot of the petitioner considering the report of the jurisdictional executive engineer wherein it is stated that the plot involved in the said Misc. Case was within the distance of two (2) km of a barrage axis or dam on a river vide Kolkata Gazette No. 48- ICE/MIN/GEN-MIS/17/2021 dated 25.01.2022. 5. At this juncture, attention of this Court is drawn to the environmental clearance given by the State Environment Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA), West Bengal in favour of the private respondent. 6. It is submitted that it is the specific case of the writ petitioner that from the said environmental clearance report dated 16.04.2025 as issued by SEIAA, it would reveal that the plot no. 401(P), Mouza – Beloa, PS- Sonamukhi, District-Bankura, West Bengal is also within the prohibited area and despite that the respondent authorities are bent upon to execute a registered deed of lease for excavation of minor minerals from the said plot of lands in favour of the private respondent. 7. Learned advocate for the respondent State, respondent Corporation and the private respondent vehemently opposes the prayer. 8. On careful consideration of the entire materials as placed before this Court it appears to this Court that mere similarity of mouza as involved in the 3 instant writ petition and as involved in Misc Case No. 01 of 2025 as disposed of by the jurisdictional DL &LRO cannot bring the plot in question within the prohibited area as claimed by the writ petitioner in the absence of any cogent material. 9. In view of the discussion made hereinabove, it appears to this Court that the present writ petitioner is not at all successful in establishing a prima facie case for issuance of the appropriate writ. 10. With the aforementioned, the instant writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. 11. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties subject to compliance with all requisite formalities. (Partha Sarathi Sen , J.)