N.22Sl 151/CL 28.09.26 DL-20 Ct.-19 (S.R.) WPA 23838 of 2026 Rakshakali Supply v. The State of West Bengal & Ors. Mr. Ashoke Banerjee, Sr. Adv. Mr. Mir Anowar … for the petitioner. Mr. Nilanjan Bhattacharjee, SSC Ms. Jayita Dhar Chakraborty, JGA Mr. Surojit Das … for the State. Mr. Sanjay Saha Mr. Raju Mondal … for the respondent nos.9 & 10. 1. Affidavit of service as filed today on behalf of the writ petitioner is taken on record. 2. The subject matter of the instant writ petition is the memo dated 19.08.2026 as issued by the respondent no.5 authority, whereby and whereunder the said respondent no.5 authority demanded a sum of Rs.13,21,00,058.51/- towards proportionate auction premium from the writ petitioner in respect of leased out sand block: Raina-II/Naratambati/2502(P)/B with area 07.82 areas. 3. At the time of hearing, Mr. Banerjee, learned senior advocate appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner draws attention of this Court to the order dated 02.07.2026 as passed by this Court in WPA 14231 of 2026 (Raju Mondal v. The State of West Bengal & Ors.) as well as to the copy of the judgment dated 14.09.2026 as passed by this Court in WPA 23649 of 2026 (Probhat Barui v. The State of West Bengal & Ors.). 4. It is argued by Mr. Banerjee that in an identical situation, this Court quashed the similar such memo, as has been impugned in the instant writ petition. 5. Ms. Chakraborty, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent State while submitting a report dated 08.09.2026 of the respondent no.5 authority contended that there is every justification on the part of the respondent no.5 authority to issue the notification impugned in view of the fact that after issuance of NIT, with the efflux of time the mineral resources in the relevant sand blocks has been increased and, therefore, the respondent no.5 authority has rightly demanded enhanced payment. 6. Mr. Saha duly assisted by Mr. 6. Mr. Saha duly assisted by Mr. Mondal, learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respondent nos.9 and 10 submits before this Court that in similar situations, this Court in the case of Raju Mandal (supra) and Probhat Barui (supra) quashed the similar such impugned memos, 2 however, restricting the writ petitioners therein to execute the work of excavation in the relevant sand block within the limit as mentioned in the environmenta clearance report as well as in the registered deed of lease. 7. On being asked by this Court, Mr. Banerjee, learned senior advocate submits, upon instructions, that as on this day neither the aforementioned two judgments and/or orders have been set aside by any division bench of this Court and/or any stay order has been passed upon the said judgments and/or orders as passed in the cases of Raju Mandal (supra) and Probhat Barui (supra). 8. On careful consideration of the entire materials as placed before this Court and after hearing the learned advocates for the contending parties, this Court finds that the facts and circumstances as involved in the instant writ petition are identical with the facts and circumstances as involved in the cases of Raju Mandal (supra) and Probhat Barui (supra). 9. In view of such, this Court intends to take a similar view. According, the impugned memo No.578/DL&LRO-PRBDN/MM/26 dated 19.08.2026 is hereby set aside as issued by the respondent no.5 authority. 3 10. It is, thus, directed that the respondent nos.4, 5, 9 and 10 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 registered deed of lease dated 31.12.2024, a copy of which has been annexed at page no.94 of the instant writ petition till the lifetime of the said registered deed of lease. 11. With the aforementioned observations, WPA 23838 of 2026 is disposed of. 12. There shall, however, be no order as to costs. 13. 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. 14. Urgent photostat certified copies of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance with all the necessary formalities. (Partha Sarathi Sen, J.) 4