Appeal challenging an order directing reconsideration of mining lease. Court noted a report stating measures were taken to ensure access to the sand block was not completely blocked despite e-Auction of surrounding plots. Appeal disposed of with no further interference.
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.
05 19.11.2024 Ct. No. 11 Jayanta
MAT 1160 of 2024 With CAN 1 of 2024 Basudeb Bhattacharya
vs.
State of West Bengal & Ors.
Mr. Rabinbdra Nath Mahata (Through VC) Mr. Aritra Shankar Ray
….For the Appellant.
Mr. Saikat Chatterjee
….For the State/Respondents.
The present appeal has been preferred challenging an order dated 15th May, 2024 passed in the writ petition being, WPA 3848 of 2024.
Mr. Mahata, learned advocate appearing for the appellant submitted that though the learned Single Judge directed the competent authority to reconsider the appellant’s prayer for grant of mining lease strictly in terms of the observations made by the Hon’ble Appeal Court in its order dated 23rd June, 2022 in FMA 644 of 2015, the respondents were not restrained from blocking the access to the appellant’s plots as a result of the e- Auction of the plots surrounding the appellant’s plots.
Upon hearing Mr. Mahata, this Court by an order dated 11th July, 2024 directed Mr. Chatterjee, learned advocate appearing for the
2
respondents to avail necessary instruction as regards the appellant’s grievances when the matter last appeared on 11th July, 2024.
Pursuant to such direction, a report of the respondent no. 5 dated 1st August, 2024 was placed before us on 7th November, 2024 by Mr. Chatterjee. A copy of the same was directed to be handed over to Mr. Mahata and the matter was made returnable today.
Upon hearing the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and considering the materials on record and the contents of the report, we are of the opinion that no further interference is called for in the present appeal, since in the report submitted by the respondent no. 5, it has been categorically stated that ‘ in this context, it is to be stated that the necessary care has already been taken so that the access to the sand block as claimed by the petitioner will not be blocked completely as a result of e-Auction in compliance of FMA No. 644 of 2015’.
Accordingly, the appeal and the connected application are disposed of.
There shall, however, be no order as to costs.
Urgent certified photocopy of this order, if applied for, be supplied as expeditiously as possible.
3
(Partha Sarathi Chatterjee,J.) (Tapabrata Chakraborty,J.)
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the appellant's access to plots was unlawfully blocked due to e-Auction of surrounding plots.
Basudeb Bhattacharya
State of West Bengal
Ors
Partha Sarathi Chatterjee
Tapabrata Chakraborty
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
