IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction Appellate Side Ct.19 18.09.26 Item No.0 4 (S.R.)/Sws.M RVW 192 of 2026 With CAN 1 of 2026 Sk. Karim v. The State of West Bengal & Ors. Mr. Sukanta Chakraborty Mr. Soumya Kanti Sinha Ms. Suparna Das Mr. Anindya Halder … for the petitioner. Mr. D.N. Ray, Ld. GP Ms. Jayita Dhar Chakraborty Mr. Rhitam Chatterjee … for the State. Mr. Sanjay Saha Mr. Raju Mondal … for the respondent nos.3 and 4. 1. The review petitioner and the respondents are represented by their respective counsel. 2. By filing the instant review petition, the review petitioner has sought for review of the judgment and order dated 02.07.2026 as passed by this Court in WPA 14220 of 2026. By the said order dated 02.07.2026, this Court directed the writ petitioner to submit an undertaking in writing before the respondent no.7/ authority that he would not extract more than 24,862.5 cubic meter per year during the entire period of five 2 years’ lease along with indemnity bond and in the event, any excess amount of sand is extracted from the leased out area, he would pay excess amount to the respondent no.7 authority therein, as would be charged by the said respondent no.7, in accordance with law. 3. It is pertinent to mention herein that the permissible limit of extraction to the tune of Rs.24,862.5 cubic meter per year was mentioned in the notice inviting tender dated 19.12.2018, that is at page No. 66 of the writ petition. 4. At the time of argument Mr. Chakraborty, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the review petitioner draws attention of this Court to the Memorandum of Review as filed by the review petitioner. It is submitted by Mr. Chakraborty that after passing of the judgment and order dated 02.07.2026 in WPA 14220 of 2026, it has come to the knowledge of the present review petitioner that in respect of surrounding mining area covered under the same NIE, the respondent/State permitted the lessee of the said mining blocks to extract minor minerals in terms of the mining plan as submitted by the said lessees without insisting upon payment of any further premium amount, as mentioned in the NIE in question. 5. It is submitted by Mr. 5. It is submitted by Mr. Chakraborty that had the review petitioner knowledge about the execution of the said registered deed of lease in between the 3 respondent/State as lessor and other successful bidders in respect of the surrounding several sand blocks as lessees, the review petitioner could have produce those certified copy of the registered deeds of lease along with the writ petition to substantiate that the petitioners are entitled to extract the minor minerals in terms of the mining reserve/annual production as approved by the SEIIA in the approved mining plan. 6. Drawing attention to Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, it is submitted by Mr. Chakraborty that since at the time of passing of the order dated 02.07.2026 in WPA 14220 of 2026, the said new and important evidence was not within the knowledge of the writ petitioner and the writ petitioner came to know about the existence of the aforementioned lease deeds in respect of the surrounding blocks, the present review petitioner has approached this Court by filing the instant review petition. 7. It is further argued by Mr. Chakraborty that in the NIE dated 19.12.2018, the total mineral reserves are shown on a tentative assessment since in the said very NIE, the respondent/State categorically indicated that the deposit in the river bed is a regular phenomena depends on quantum of water and the flow rate of river which varies with quantities of precipitation along the river bed. It is submitted by Mr. Chakraborty that in 4 the event the new and important evidence that is the certified copy of the registered deeds of lease in respect of the surrounding sand blocks are considered in its true perspective and in the event the present review petitioner is permitted to extract the minor minerals from the relevant sand block in terms of the mineral reserve as indicated in the approved mining plan, the cannot be any occasion on the part of the respondent/State to suffer any pecuniary loss since the review petitioner is duty bound to pay royalty on the basis of their actual extraction. 8. It is thus argued by Mr. 8. It is thus argued by Mr. Chakraborty that considering the new and important evidence which the review petitioner could not produce despite his due diligence at the time of hearing of the writ petition, the instant review petition may be allowed and appropriate writ may be issued commanding the respondent authorities to execute a registered deed of lease in terms of the NIE dated 19.12.2018 and LOI dated 06.02.2019 permitting the lessee to extract the permissible limit of minor minerals as indicated in the approved mining plan as involved in the instant writ petition. Mr. Chakraborty, thus submits that the earlier order dated 02.07.2026 as passed in WPA 14220 of 2026 may be modified accordingly. 9. Per contra, Mr. Saha, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent/corporation, vehemently 5 opposes the prayer as made by the review petitioner. It is argued by Mr. Saha that the evidence which the review petitioner intend to adduce, that is the certified copy of the registered deeds of lease in respect of the surrounding sand blocks have got no legal implication in connection with the instant review petition inasmuch as in respect of the said sand blocks after issuance of LOI, registered deeds of lease was executed whereas in the case in hand no registered deed of lease was executed in between the State and the review petitioner as yet, and to that extent the alleged evidence are of no use for disposal of the instant review petition. 10. On careful perusal of the entire materials placed on record and after hearing learned advocates for the contending parties, this Court at the very outset once again proposes to look to the NIE dated 19.12.2018. It appears to this Court that in the said NIE, the total mineral reserves have been indicated to the tune of 24,862.5 cubic meter per year. It appears to this Court that on the basis of such tentative estimate of total mineral reserve, the respondent/State has fixed an amount of premium. It is undisputed that a tender is an invitation to submit an offer and in terms of such invitation dated 19.12.2018, the writ petitioner participated in the said tender and found to be a 6 successful bidder since he had given the highest offer of bid. 11. On perusal of the LOI dated 06.02.2019, as issued by the respondent/State, it appears that the respondent/State has accepted such offer of the review petitioner, subject to fulfilment of some terms and conditions, as mentioned therein. It thus appears to this Court that the respondent/State while accepting the offer of the review petitioner, being the highest bidder, a concluded contract was formed subject to execution of the registered deed of lease on fulfillment of certain terms and conditions. 12. It appears to this Court that while submitting his offer, the writ petitioner was well aware regarding the premium amount, as fixed by the respondent/State, about the tentative amount of total mineral reserve in the concerned sand block and knowing such fact he was given the offer which has been accepted by the respondent/State. It is trite that as soon as a concluded contract is entered into by and between the parties, the parties to the contract are bound by their terms and conditions. 13. Coming to the factual aspects as involved in the instant writ petition, it appears that being aware of the tentative total mineral reserve in the relevant sand block as has been mentioned in the NIE dated 19.12.2018, the review petitioner knowingly 7 participated in the tender and had given his offer which has been accepted by the respondent/State by issuing LOI and therefore in considered view of this Court, both the respondent/State and the present review petitioner are bound by the terms and conditions of the tender document vis-à-vis the terms and conditions as mentioned in the LOI. In considered view of this Court, the other registered deeds of lessee as have been entered into by and between the State and the other persons as lessees cannot have any intrinsic value for determination of the actual dispute as involved in the said writ petition. 14. In view of the discussion made hereinabove, this Court considers that the alleged discovery of new evidence is no way helpful for the review petitioner to seek review of the judgment and order dated 02.07.2026 as passed by this Curt in WPA 14220 of 2026. 15. With the aforementioned observation, the instant review petition along with the connected application is dismissed. 16. There shall be, however, no order as to costs. 17. 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.)