The Court directed the concerned authority to consider the petitioner's application afresh after accepting the bid amount following the initial rejection.
The impugned order dated 24.11.2022 was set aside; the authority was directed to consider the petitioner's representation afresh and pass a reasoned order within one month.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
December 13, 2023 ARDR (11)
WPA 5493 of 2023
Maa Sarada Enterprise Vs.
The State of West Bengal & ors.
Adv. Pinaki Ranjan Chakraborty, Adv. Pallav Chatterjee, Adv. Monajit Chakraborti,
…for the petitioner.
Adv. Sanjay Saha, Adv. Subhasish Bhattacharya, Adv. Chandi Charan De, Adv. Anirban Sarkar,
…for the respondent no.2.
…for the State.
Affidavit of service and supplementary affidavit submitted by the petitioner are taken on record.
Written instructions submitted on behalf of the State respondents is also taken on record.
Heard learned counsels for the parties.
Pursuant to an earlier order passed by this Court on 4th November, 2022 in WPA 20323 of 2022, representation submitted by the petitioner for grant of long term mining lease upon depositing the earnest money and one-third of the bid amount was considered by the authority being the Additional District Magistrate and District Land & Land Reforms Officer, Purba Bardhaman and by an order passed on 24th November, 2022, the authority rejected the prayer of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner did not submit the entire bid amount even after service of demand notice and the draft lease deed and bank guarantee were also not submitted within the stipulated time.
2
The supplementary affidavit filed by the petitioner demonstrates that after rejection of the representation, the authority has accepted the total bid amount of Rs.1,92,37,600/- from the petitioner.
In view of such acceptance, the petitioner seeks fresh consideration of his application by the authority.
Upon consideration of the submission made on behalf of the parties, this Court is inclined to hold that since the concerned authority has accepted the entire bid amount from the petitioner despite rejection of his representation for grant of lease, the concerned authority, being the 4th respondent herein, be directed to consider the representation of the petitioner afresh and pass a reasoned order within one month from the date of communication of this order upon affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to all the stakeholders including the petitioner, in accordance with law.
The decision taken by the authority shall be communicated to the petitioner within a week thereof.
The impugned order dated 24th November, 2022 is set aside.
With the above observations and directions the writ petition is disposed of.
There shall however, be no order as to costs.
Since no affidavit is invited, the allegations contained in the petition are deemed not to be admitted.
3
Urgent certified website copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance with all requisite formalities.
(Suvra Ghosh, J.)
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the concerned authority is directed to reconsider the petitioner's representation for a mining lease after accepting the bid amount following a rejection.
Whether the impugned order rejecting the initially incomplete submission should be set aside.
The extent of the direction to the authority to pass a reasoned order after the petitioner was required to comply with pending submissions.
Maa Sarada Enterprise
The State of West Bengal
Suvra Ghosh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
