Calcutta High Court
MAT/1471/2025 of TAPAS BANERJEE Vs THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS. on 9 October 2026
J(2) In the High Court at Calcutta Civil Appellate Jurisdiction Appellate Side Present: The Hon’ble Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya And The Hon’ble Justice Sandip Kumar De MAT 1471 of 2025 IA No: CAN 1 of 2025 Tapas Banerjee Vs. The State of West Bengal and others For the appellant
Form No. J(2)
In the High Court at Calcutta
Civil Appellate Jurisdiction
Appellate Side
Present:
The Hon’ble Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya
And
The Hon’ble Justice Sandip Kumar De
MAT 1471 of 2025
IA No: CAN 1 of 2025
Tapas Banerjee
Vs.
The State of West Bengal and others
For the appellant
:
Mr. Partha Sarathi Bhattacharjee, Snr. Adv.,
Mr. Sushanta Kr. Rakshit
For the State
:
Mr. Nilanjan Bhattacharjee, Snr. St. Counsel, Mr. Saikat Dey For the respondent no.5 :
Mr. Sanjay Sah,
Ms. Indrani Mukherjee
Heard on
:
09.10.2026
Judgment on
:
09.10.2026
Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.:-
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. Affidavit-of-service filed today be kept on record.
2. The present challenge has been preferred against an order passed by the authorities rejecting the application of the appellant for grant of a short term mining lease.
3. By the impugned order, the learned Single Judge merely refused to interfere on the ground of availability of an equally efficacious
2
alternative remedy by way of an appeal under Rule 51 of the West Bengal Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 2016 (for short “the 2016 Rules”).
4. As such, no rights of the parties have been effectively decided by the impugned order.
5. The scope of interference in an intra-court appeal is extremely limited.
6. Keeping in view such consideration, we are of the opinion that there is no occasion to interfere with the impugned order since the remedy of appeal is already available to the appellant.
7. Accordingly, MAT 1471 of 2025 is dismissed on contest without any order as to costs, leaving it open to the appellant to prefer an appropriate challenge under Rule 51 of the 2016 Rules in accordance with law and subject to limitation, if applicable.
8. Consequentially, CAN 1 of 2025 is also disposed of.
9. There will be no order as to costs.
10. Urgent Photostat certified copies of this judgment, if applied for, be made available to the parties upon compliance with the requisite formalities.
(Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.) I agree.
(Sandip Kumar De, J.)
AD-10 TN