Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Matangini Trading & Ors vs District Land And Land Reforms Officer & ... on 4 April, 2013
Author: Jayanta Kumar Biswas
Bench: Jayanta Kumar Biswas
1 In the High Court at Calcutta Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction Appellate Side Present:
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jayanta Kumar Biswas.
W.P.N0.1981(W) of 2013 Matangini Trading & Ors.
v.
District Land and Land Reforms Officer & Ors.
Mr.Matibur Rahaman Mr.Saheb Banerjee. ...for the petitioners. Heard on: April 4, 2013.
Judgement on: April 4, 2013.
The Court:- The petitioners in this WP under art.226 of the Constitution of India dated January 18, 2013 are questioning an order of the District Land & Land Reforms Officer, Purba Medinipur dated September 26, 2012 rejecting their application for quarry permit dated May 22, 2012. The relevant part of the order is quoted below:-
"In reference to the subject noted above, this is to state that Sri Sankar Smanta may apply afresh for the extraction of sand in another zone/site of the river Haldi where no sand extraction is being operated, to avoid the overlapping of site."
Advocate for the State has submitted that against the order the petitioners had a statutory remedy of appeal under r.36 of the West Bengal Minor Minerals Rules, 2002. Advocate for the petitioners has submitted that since an appeal under r.36 can be filed only against an order passed under any rule in ch.v of the rules and the impugned order was passed under the provisions of rules in ch.iv of the rules, the petitioners were not entitled to file an appeal against the order.
I am unable to accept that an appeal under r.36 of the rules can be filed only against an order passed under any rule in ch.v of the rules. Rule 30 referring to which the submission has been made provides that to a mining lease granted before commencement of the West Bengal Minor Minerals Rules, 2002 2 the rules shall apply mutatis mutandis. This does not mean that the rules in ch.v will have no application to any order passed under any other rule of the rules.
Sub-rule(1) of r.36 provides that any person aggrieved by an order made by the District authority or any officer duly authorised by the District authority in exercise of the powers conferred upon him by this rules, may, within thirty days from the date of communication of the order to him, prefer an appeal against the order. It is, therefore, evident that against the order passed under the rules in ch.iv of the rules, the petitioners had a statutory remedy of appeal.
For these reasons, I dispose of the WP saying that nothing in this order shall prevent the petitioners from lodging an appeal against the impugned order with an application for condonation of delay. No costs. Certified xerox.
(Jayanta Kumar Biswas, J.) sm.