Protik Prakash Banerjee, J. - (1.) Affidavit of service filed in Court is taken on record.
(2.) The writ petitioner has come up before this Court on essentially an allegation that despite having applied with requisition made by the appropriate authority for grant of long term mining lease for raising sand on a specified area of Kangsabati river, she is not being granted such a lease. In the writ petition the petitioner has alleged that her application for grant of such a lease had ultimately been allowed by an order passed by the appropriate authority pursuant to the directions of the Hon'ble High Court in the year 2014. Therefore, it is clear that this lease which she relies upon was based on the 2002 Rules in respect of minor minerals framed by the Government of West Bengal without the amendments effected in November, 2011 which were subsequently struck down by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court. Her further case is that by letter dated August 29, 2016 she was asked to submit environmental clearance for sand mining in terms of binding order of the Supreme Court which are reflected in the order of the learned National Green Tribunal, Eastern Zone, Kolkata and that though she applied for category B 2 licence on December 1, 2016, she was not being allowed to carry on sand mining.
(3.) At the time when the application was moved for obtaining interim reliefs, Mr. Nirmal Kr. Manna, learned senior advocate ably instructed by Ms. Mitali Mukherjee submits that the writ petition is bad and ought to be dismissed for suppression of a very material fact which amounts to coming to the writ Court, a Court of equity, with hands which are not only not clean but absolutely filthy.;