Dismissed¶21

Rakhi Saha v. State of West Bengal and Ors.

Calcutta HC14 Jan 2026WPA/271/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

WPA 271 of 2026; Rakhi Saha v. The State of West Bengal & Ors.; writ petition dismissed as withdrawn; liberty to file appeal under Rule 51, West Bengal Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 2016; WBMDTCL respondent no. 7; maintainability objection; limitation condonation; original lessee deceased; Purba Bardhaman; ADM & DL&LRO order dated 30.10.2023; Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, J.; decision dated 14.01.2026.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed as withdrawn; petitioner granted liberty to prefer an appeal under Rule 51 of the West Bengal Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 2016 within three weeks of receipt of a server copy; such appeal, if filed in time, to be decided on merits without a limitation bar and disposed of preferably within 12 weeks of filing. ¶21

Rakhi Saha Vs State of West Bengal and Ors. — Calcutta HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶21

Issue for consideration

Whether the writ petition is maintainable in view of the availability of an appellate remedy under Rule 51 of the West Bengal Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 2016. +1 more

¶15

Ratio / Principle

The writ petition stands dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty to the petitioner to approach the appropriate forum (the authority under Rule 51 of the 2016 Rules) in accordance with law.

¶21

Key takeaways

The petitioner is permitted to prefer an appeal under Rule 51 of the 2016 Rules within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a server copy of this order.ratio¶24
If the appeal is presented within the aforesaid time limit, it shall be considered on its merit and shall not be dismissed on the ground of limitation.ratio¶25
The appellate authority shall dispose of the appeal as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of 12 weeks from the date of filing of the appeal.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Withdrawal of writ petition — challenge to order dated October 30, 2023 of the Additional District Magistrate and District Land and Land Reforms Officer, Purba Bardhaman — maintainability objected to by respondent no. 7 (WBMDTCL) on account of the appellate remedy under Rule 51 of the West Bengal Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 2016 — petition dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to approach the Rule 51 authority — appeal permitted within three weeks of receipt of server copy — appeal filed within such time to be heard on merits without dismissal on the ground of limitation and disposed of preferably within 12 weeks — delay explained by death of petitioner's husband, the original lessee; condonation not opposed by respondents. The maintainability objection was not adjudicated, the petition having been withdrawn.

Court No. 19

WPA 271 of 2026

(265719)

14.01.2026 Rakhi Saha (AD 12) Vs.

¶5

The State of West Bengal & Ors.

¶6

(S. Banerjee)

¶7

Ms. Pampa Dey (Dhabal) Ms. Sangita Banerjee

¶8

…for the petitioner

¶9

Mr. Lalit Mohan Mahata, Ld. AGP Mr. Himadri Kumar Mahata

¶10

…for the State

¶11

Mr. Sanjay Saha Mr. Raju Mondal

¶12

…for the respondent no. 7

¶13

Affidavit of service filed in Court today, is taken on record.

¶14

The petitioner has challenged the order of the Additional District Magistrate and District Land and Land Reforms Officer, Purba Bardhaman dated October 30, 2023 in this writ petition.

¶15

Learned advocate appearing for the West Bengal Mineral Development and Trading Corporation Limited (‘WBMDTCL’, for short), being the 7^th respondent, raises an objection as to the maintainability of the instant writ petition in view of availability of an appellate remedy provided under

¶16

¶17

Rule 51 of the West Bengal Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 2016 (‘the 2016 Rules’, for short).

¶18

After some argument, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner prays for leave to withdraw this writ petition with liberty to approach the authority under Rule 51 of the 2016 Rules.

¶19

Though the writ petition has been filed on January 5, 2026, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that in the meantime the husband of the petitioner, who was the original lessee, passed away and for such reason there was some delay in approaching this Court.

¶20

Learned advocates representing the 7^th respondent and the learned advocate appearing for the State-respondent do not oppose the prayer for condonation of delay.

¶21

In the light of the submission made by the learned advocate appearing for the petitioner, this writ petition stands dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to the petitioner to approach the appropriate forum in accordance with law.

¶22

Accordingly, the petitioner is permitted to prefer an appeal under Rule 51 of the 2016 Rules within a

¶23

¶24

period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a server copy of this order.

¶25

In the event the appeal is presented within the aforesaid time limit, the same shall be considered on its merit without dismissing the same on the ground of limitation. The said appeal shall be disposed of by the appellate authority as expeditiously as possible but preferably within a period of 12 weeks from the date of filing of the appeal.

¶26

(Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, J.)

Rakhi Saha v. State of West Bengal and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rakhi Saha v. State of West Bengal and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dulal Bera Vs Union of India and Ors.

Profectus Capital Private Limited and Anr. Vs State of West Bengal and Anr.

Alok Kumar Jana and Anr. Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

Mofizuddin Ahamed and Ors. Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

Asraful Islam Khan Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

Sahida Ahmed Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.