JAINAB BIBI Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners application for mining lease has been rejected on the ground that indiscriminate extraction of minerals from the bed of Mayurakshi River in the concerned mouza is endangering life and property of the local people as well as it is disturbing normal flow of Mayurakshi River and is endangering the embankment and bridge in the stretch of those mouzas. An expert committee was constituted to examine the vulnerability of the embankment of Mayurakshi River in those mouzas and also to report on the scope of granting any further lease or quary permit in those areas. The committee reported that only 0.80 acres of land in Rajyadharpur in Plot No. 1002 (L. R. Plot No. 59) is beyond the restricted zone. The committee also observed that Plots No. 2476, 2366 of mouza Modda also fall within the restricted zone. Having gone through the order (Annexure p-2) I do not find any infirmity in the order. No one can claim any right against public interest. The grounds on which the lease was refused is fully justified.

(2.) The petitioner further submits that a lease of 0.65 acres of land in Plot No. 1002 has been granted to a third party as it is apparent from the Annexure p-3. According to him this was granted after the petitioner's application was rejected. But from the record it does not appear that it was so granted in the absence of any date in Annexure p-3. It is very difficult to appreciate in the absence of the date, that this was done after the petitioners application was rejected.

(3.) Be that as it may, in view of the report on the basis whereof, petitioner's application has been rejected, no grant can be made to any person within the restricted zone. The grant made to the third party may be reconsidered upon notice to such third party. In case within the restricted zone any lease was granted after the refusal of the petitioner's application on the basis of application made by the said third party, in that event, the respondent shall give opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as well as the said Subir Chandra Pal and determine the question on the basis of the priority of the making of for the Petitioner for the Respondent the application for the self-same land provided the same is outside the restricted zone. In the meantime, no lease deed shall be executed, if not already executed, in case the said Subir Chandra Pal has been granted lease or licence on the basis of an application made after that of the petitioner since been rejected. In case it was granted on the basis of an application made before that of the petitioner, in that event, this interim order shall not operate and lease may be executed, if not already executed.