JUDGMENT 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 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. 4. But in no event any permit licence or lease shall be granted nor any mining operation shall be permitted, in respect of any land within the restricted zone. Any mining lease or licence or quary permit if granted to anyone or if being operated by anyone falling within the restricted zone, the same shall be stopped forthwith and shall not be allowed to continue and then be cancelled immediately thereafter, upon notice to such person but not latter than three weeks from communication of this order. 5. Inasmuch as right of an individual guaranteed under the constitution is definitely a legal right available to an individual. He is entitled to enjoy and exercise such legal right without any interference from any corner. Man is a social being. One's individual right is also a right to be enjoyed within the society. One cannot claim, though it is a legal right, to enjoy his right in a manner which may endanger the life and property of others or of the society as a whole. Pitted against the social evil an individual right has to yield to social good. If the exercise of such right brings an evil to the society such right cannot be allowed to be exercised. If it affects the society and brings about ills in that event the society is to be protected even at the cost of individual right. When exercise of right of an individual is about to bring disaster to the society including loss of life and property of people as well as a necessary pressure on the exchequer of the Government for making good the damages on such disaster or for the funds spent on relief and rehabilitation then such right is not enforceable in law. One cannot exercise his right on the woes of others. 6. One cannot exercise his right on the woes of others. 6. Since it is found that the area is in a danger zone for the embankment and is flood prone the Government is not supposed to throw to the winds the safety of the embankment vis-a-vis the safety of the people of the locality as well as the Government property being the embankment. The effect of floods are common experience and common knowledge which does not require any special description. What flood means to the victims is known to everyone. Simply because one has a right the same cannot be allowed to be exercised at the cost of woes of the others inviting flood which will then no more be a natural calamity but a man made calamity, to which the administration would be contributing. 7. Thus, it is wholly impermissible. Grant of lease or permit in the restricted zone would then be wholly illegal. The administration has no jurisdiction to do so. If it is so done then it would not only be an illegality but would also be an immorality. 8. In exercise of writ jurisdiction Court cannot issue a mandamus directing the administration to do something which is impermissible. Reference may be made to the observations made by the Apex Court in (1) T. Kennan and Ors. v. S. K. Nyyar and Ors., 1991 (1) SCC 554 and (2) Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Asha Ram Chandra Ambekar, AIR 1994 SC 2148 , as quoted in Arun Kr. Ghosh and Ors. v. State of West Bengal and Ors., W. P. No. 693 of 2000 disposed of on 12th of June, 2001. The writ petition is thus disposed of. No cost.