Arindam Singha vs. State Of West Bengal And Ors.

Facts

The appellant, Arindam Singha, filed a writ petition challenging an order dismissing his plea to cancel the renewal of a sand mining lease granted to respondent No. 6, Smt. Shova Mondal. The lease was initially granted on August 18, 2008, for five years, renewed for another five years until January 21, 2021, and subsequently renewed again. The appellant claimed that respondent No. 6 executed a sub-lease agreement dated September 30, 2019, in favour of 'Multi Construction', in which the appellant was a partner. The appellant's grievance was that the lease was renewed despite the sub-lease being granted in violation of the original lease deed and relevant rules. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition, holding that the appellant lacked locus standi as a lease for sand mining granted by the State cannot be sub-let or transferred. The appellant argued that the agreement was indeed a sub-lease and that the lease should be cancelled due to violations.

Held

The Court held that the agreement dated September 30, 2019, was in the nature of a sub-lease, as it involved the transfer of rights to extract and sell sand for consideration, with the sub-lessee being responsible for various charges including GST. This was in violation of Rule 22 of the West Bengal Minor Minerals Rules, 2016, and condition No. 15.1 of the original lease deed, both of which prohibit assignment, mortgage, or transfer of the lease to any third party without the written consent of the State Government or the lease-granting authority. Consequently, the Court found that it was obligatory for the competent authority to examine the issue of violation of lease conditions and rules and take consequential action. The Court set aside the order of the learned Single Judge and directed the District Magistrate, Bankura, to take appropriate action in accordance with law, adhering to the principles of natural justice, preferably within two months. The ratio decidendi is that a sub-lease granted in violation of statutory rules and lease conditions necessitates an inquiry by the competent authority, and a party affected by such violation, even if not a direct party to the lease, may have locus standi to seek such an inquiry.

Key Issues

1. Whether the appellant has the locus standi to maintain the writ application challenging the renewal of the sand mining lease, given that the lease deed and Rule 22 of the West Bengal Minor Minerals Rules, 2016, prohibit sub-letting or transfer without the State Government's consent. Petitioner's Argument: The appellant contended that he has locus standi because the sub-lease was granted in violation of the lease deed and rules, necessitating the cancellation of the lease, and therefore, he cannot be ousted on the ground of locus standi. He argued that the agreement dated September 30, 2019, was indeed a sub-lease, transferring rights to extract and sell sand for consideration, and requiring the sub-lessee to pay taxes including GST. Revenue's Argument: The State argued that the agreement dated September 30, 2019, was not a sub-lease. However, the Court found no substance in this argument.