ARINDAM SINHA, J. - (1.) Petitioner has been an applicant for mining lease and remained so for a long time. Her application was rejected at the first instance, by resort to amended Rule 16B of the West Bengal Minor Mineral Rules, 2002. The amendment came to be struck down and thereupon petitioner moved this Court by her first writ petition W.P.29174 (W) of 2014 (Smt. Renuka Patra vs. State of West Bengal and Ors.). The said writ petition was disposed of by a learned Single Judge of this Court. Order dated 11th November, 2014 upheld challenge of the petitioner to set aside the rejection of the application with the following direction:- "The concerned respondents being the Additional District Magistrate and District Land and Land Reforms Officer, Bankura is directed to reconsider the matter following the old Rules of 2002". Ms. Maiti, learned Advocate appears on behalf of the petitioner and submits, purportedly in compliance of the said direction, the authority opened a case which was allowed to linger. The said case, on 10th August, 2015, was directed to remain in abeyance by reason of an appeal preferred being MAT no.2037 of 2014 ( State of West Bengal vs. Swapan Sarkar and Ors .). Later the West Bengal Minor Mineral Rules, 2016 were promulgated. It was only then, by memo dated 2nd December, 2016, the petitioner's long pending application came to be rejected for the second time by purported application of the said Rules in spite of the said direction, from which there had been no appeal. She submits, the said direction cannot be said to be complied with. The right of her client to have her application considered following the old Rules, 2002 had been declared by this Court by a judicial order which had become final. She relies on a judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Arup Nandi vs. Union of India and Anr . reported in (2015)2 WBLR (Cal) 242 wherein the learned Judge said, "It is elementary that upon a judicial order being passed and it not being challenged, it attains finality;" and "...but it would be calamitous to accept that a judicial order that has attained finality can be disregarded as erroneous by an executive functionary."
(2.) She also relies on two judgments of the Supreme Court in the cases of B.L. Gupta and Another vs. M.C.D . reported in (1998) 9 Supreme Court Cases 223 and Jenany J.R. vs. S. Rajeevan and Others reported in (2010) 5 Supreme Court Cases 798 wherein service law declared was that vacancies which arise prior should be filled up according to the then applicable Rules. Her client's application having been made long before and, according to her, deliberately not dealt with in spite of direction, cannot be rejected in the manner in which it has been rejected on the claim of compliance with the said direction. She seeks interference of this Court by her client's this second writ petition.
(3.) Mr. Roy, learned Advocate appears on behalf of State and hands up copy of 2016 Rules enclosed with his instructions. He submits, no interference is warranted. The 2016 Rules become applicable for the purpose of dealing with applications for mining leases irrespective of when such application was made. It would be convenient to extract Rules 61 and 62 from the West Bengal Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2016. "61. Declaration of ineligibility of the pending minor mineral applications for mining lease including the applications of reclassified major minerals- All applications for mining lease of minor minerals including the reclassified minor minerals vide SO No.-423(E) dated 12th February, 2015 received prior to the giving effect to this rules irrespective of its duration of pendency shall become ineligible. Provided that if the applicant has been issued a Grant Order or Letter of Intent (Lol) or any other Government Order requiring the alteration of applicant's position then his mining lease application may be considered after due compliance of the all the necessary conditions. 62. Repeal.- (1) The West Bengal Minor Mineral Rules, 2002, is hereby repealed. (2) Notwithstanding such repeal, anything done, any action taken, or any prosecution started under the said rules, shall be deemed to have been validly done or taken, or started as the case may be, under the corresponding provisions of thee rules." ;