Asraful Islam Khan Vs State of West Bengal and Ors. — Calcutta HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Asraful Islam Khan Vs State of West Bengal and Ors. — Calcutta HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ petition dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to the petitioner to prefer an appeal under Rule 51 of the 2016 Rules within three weeks of receipt of a server copy; such appeal to be considered on merit without dismissal on the ground of limitation, and to be disposed of by the appellate authority as expeditiously as possible, preferably within 12 weeks of filing.

Issue for consideration

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

Court's answer

The writ petition stands dismissed as withdrawn.

Ratio / Principle

Liberty granted to the petitioner to approach the appropriate forum (the authority under Rule 51 of the 2016 Rules) in accordance with law.

Key takeaways

The petitioner is permitted to prefer an appeal under Rule 51 of the 2016 Rules within three weeks from the date of receipt of a server copy of this order.ratio¶22
If the appeal is presented within the stipulated time limit, it shall be considered on its merit without being dismissed on the ground of limitation.ratio¶23
The appellate authority shall dispose of the appeal as expeditiously as possible, preferably within 12 weeks from the date of filing of the appeal.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Asraful Islam Khan (AD 13) v. State of West Bengal & Ors., WPA 303 of 2026, decided 14.01.2026 (Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, J.). The petitioner challenged an order dated December 5, 2023 of the Additional District Magistrate and District Land and Land Reforms Officer, Paschim Medinipur. Respondent no. 3, the West Bengal Mining Development and Trading Corporation Limited (WBMDTCL), objected to the maintainability of the writ petition in view of the appellate remedy under Rule 51 of the West Bengal Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 2016. The impugned order had been communicated to the petitioner only on November 26, 2025 pursuant to this Court's direction of November 17, 2025 in WPA 2580 of 2025, and neither respondent no. 3 nor the State opposed condonation of delay. The writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to approach the authority under Rule 51; the petitioner was permitted to file the appeal within three weeks of receipt of a server copy, the appeal to be considered on merit without a limitation bar and disposed of by the appellate authority preferably within 12 weeks of filing.

Court No. 19

WPA 303 of 2026

(265719)

14.01.2026 Asraful Islam Khan (AD 13) Vs.

State of West Bengal & Ors.

(S. Banerjee)

Mr. Robiul Islam Mr. Masooq Rahman Ms. Sanghamitra Nandy Ms. Kalpita Paul

…for the petitioner Ms. Sanghamitra Nandy Ms. Kalpita Paul …for the State Mr. Sanjay Saha Mr. Raju Mondal

…for the respondent no. 3

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

The petitioner has challenged the order of the Additional District Magistrate and District Land and Land Reforms Officer, Paschim Medinipur dated December 5, 2023 in this writ petition.

Learned advocate appearing for the West Bengal Mining Development and Trading Corporation Limited (‘WBMDTCL’, for short), being the 3^rd respondent, raises an objection as to the maintainability of the instant writ petition in view of availability of an appellate remedy provided under Rule 51 of the West

2

Bengal Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 2016 (‘the 2016 Rules’, for short).

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.

Learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that though the order under challenge in this writ petition is dated December 5, 2023, such order was communicated to the petitioner only under a covering letter dated November 26, 2025 pursuant to a direction passed by this Court on November 17, 2025 in WPA 2580 of 2025.

Thus, the petitioner was prevented by sufficient cause for not taking appropriate steps within the time limit specified under Rule 51 of the 2016 Rules.

Learned advocates representing the 3^rd respondent and the learned advocate appearing for the State do not oppose the prayer for condonation of delay in the facts of the instant case.

In the light of the submission made by the learned advocate appearing for the petitioner, this writ petition stands dismissed as withdrawn with

3

liberty to the petitioner to approach the appropriate forum in accordance with law.

Accordingly, 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.

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.

(Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, J.)