BHANU PRAKASH @ BHANU PRAKASH CHANDRA GUPTA, SON OF LATE BHOLA PRASAD Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND, THROUGH SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF MINES & GEOLOGY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) It is a case where the petitioner has sought for a direction upon the respondent Nos.2 & 3 directing them to refund the amount to the tune of Rs.5,20,000/- which was deposited by the petitioner in terms of an auction notice inviting application by the respondents for settlement of sand bed, the petitioner having been declared to be successful had deposited the total amount to the tune of Rs.18,00,000/- but subsequent thereto he has not been allowed to carry out the said work on the ground that the said work is to be carried out just adjacent to the protected forest area and in consequence thereof, the Government has taken decision not to execute the said work and in view thereof, the sum of Rs.12,80,000/- has been refunded back in favour of the petitioner but the rest of the amount of Rs.5,20,000/- has not been refunded back, therefore, the instant writ petition.

(2.) According to the petitioner, he has participated in the bid in pursuance to the notice inviting application and as such there is no fault on his part rather it is the fault committed on the part of the State authority in coming out with the notice inviting application for settling the auction for sand bed in an area situated just adjacent to the protected forest area and if the said settlement could have been allowed to be carried out since it will ultimately affect the forest and as such not permissible to carry out the said work therefore, the State authority ought to have issued the notice by taking care of all these facts but in a very mechanical manner, the notice inviting application has been made and in view thereof, the petitioner has deposited a huge amount of Rs.18,00,000/- as required during the time of participation in the bid but has not been allowed to carry out the work due to bona fide reasons but since there is fault on the part of the State authority, he cannot be allowed to suffer although the authorities have taken positive stand in the counter affidavit for refund of the amount and they have also refunded substantial amount of Rs.12,80,000/- and the rest of the amount i.e., Rs.5,20,000/- is still to be refunded but that cannot be said to be sufficient since the petitioner has been made to suffer due to no fault on his own and therefore, he is entitled to get the interest (simple interest) at the applicable bank rate.

(3.) Mr. Rupesh Singh, learned GP-V by placing reliance upon the counter affidavit has submitted that it is due to bona fide mistake the notice inviting application was issued but when the Government has realized that the area is just adjacent to the protected forest area therefore, the decision was taken by the competent authority not to execute the said work and in consequence thereof, the amount which has been deposited by the petitioner has been decided to be refunded back in his favour and in view thereof, a sum of Rs.12,80,000/- out of Rs.18,00,000/- has been refunded to the petitioner and for rest of the amount of Rs.5,20,000/- the appropriate correspondence has been made by the District Mining Officer, East Singhbhum seeking guideline from the Director of Industry, Mining and Geological Department, Government of Jharkhand which is under consideration for taking final decision.