Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Integrated with over 4 crore judgments and laws — designed for legal practitioners, researchers, students and institutions

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 8, Cited by 0]

Jharkhand High Court

Mahadev Enclave Private Limited vs The State Of Jharkhand on 16 November, 2022

Author: Rajesh Shankar

Bench: Rajesh Shankar

                                 1




     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                   W.P.(C) No.3809 of 2021
                             With
                   W.P.(C) No.3810 of 2021
                             With
                   W.P.(C) No.3811 of 2021
                             With
                   W.P.(C) No.3880 of 2021
                             With
                   W.P.(C) No.3885 of 2021
                             With
                   W.P.(C) No.3886 of 2021
                             -----

Mahadev Enclave Private Limited, Jaipur (Rajasthan). .......... Petitioner(s).

[In all cases]

-Versus-

1. The State of Jharkhand, through the Secretary, Department of Mines and Geology, Government of Jharkhand, Nepal House, Doranda, Ranchi.

2. Director of Mines & Geology, Department of Mines and Geology, Government of Jharkhand, Nepal House, Doranda, Ranchi.

3. Deputy Commissioner, Godda.

4. District Mining Officer, Godda.

5. Assistant Mining Officer, Godda.

6. State Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority, Jharkhand, through its Member Secretary, Ashok Nagar, Ranchi.

.......... Respondents.

[In all cases]

-----

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR

-----

For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sumeet Gadodia, Advocate For the State : Mr. Piyush Chitresh, A.C. to A.G. Mrs. Surabhi, A.C. to A.A.G.II For Res. No.6 : Mr. Bhanu Kumar, Advocate

-----

Order No.08 Date: 16.11.2022

1. W.P.(C) No. 3809 of 2021 has been filed for issuance of direction upon the respondent authorities to refund the proportionate amount of security deposit of Rs.2,17,004/- and 40% of the highest bid amount deposited by the petitioner as earnest money for three financial years i.e. 2015-16, 2016-17 and 2017-18 amounting to Rs.8,68,052/-; total Rs.10,85,056/- with respect to 'Vade Sand Ghat Mining Project' on Geruwa River, situated over plot No.78, at Village Vade in the District of Godda, measuring an area of 10.27 acres. Further prayer has been made for issuance of direction upon the respondent authorities to make payment of interest @ 18% per annum on the amount refundable to the petitioner towards proportionate security deposit and 40% of the highest bid amount from the date of deposit till the date 2 of actual payment. The petitioner has also prayed for quashing and setting aside the order as contained in letter No.1434/M, dated 03.12.2016 issued by Deputy Commissioner, Godda-respondent No.3, whereby settlement of the Vade Sand Ghat made in favour of the petitioner has been cancelled by forfeiting the security deposit and 40% of the highest bid amount deposited by it.

2. W.P.C No. 3810 of 2021 has been filed for issuance of direction upon the respondent authorities to refund the proportionate amount of security deposit of Rs.10,41,930/- and 40% of the highest bid amount of Rs.41,67,721/- deposited by the petitioner as earnest money; total Rs.52,09,651/- with respect to 'Sahikitta Sand Ghat Mining Project' on Geruwa River situated over plot No.37/461, at Village Sahikitta in the District of Godda, measuring an area of 5.74 Acres. Further prayer has been made for issuance of direction upon the respondent authorities to pay interest @ 18% per annum on the amount refundable to the petitioner towards proportionate security deposit and 40% of the highest bid amount from the date of deposit till the date of actual payment. The petitioner has also prayed for quashing and setting aside the order as contained in letter No.1437/M dated 03.12.2016 issued by respondent no.3, whereby settlement of the Sahikitta Sand Ghat made in favour of the petitioner has been cancelled by forfeiting the security deposit and 40% of the highest bid amount deposited by it.

3. W.P.C No. 3811 of 2021 has been filed for issuance of direction upon the respondent authorities to refund the proportionate amount of security deposit of Rs.66,345/- and 40% of the highest bid amount of Rs.2,65,381/- deposited by the petitioner as earnest money; total Rs.3,31,726/- with respect to 'Kala Dumaria Sand Ghat Mining Project' on Geruwa River situated over plot Nos. 9,10,12,33,34,35,30,60 to 65 and 66/298, at Village Kala Dumaria in the District of Godda, measuring 6.90 acres. Further prayer has been made for issuance of direction upon the respondent authorities to pay interest @ 18% per annum on the amount refundable to the petitioner towards proportionate security deposit amount and 40% of the highest bid amount, from the date of deposit till the date of actual payment. The petitioner has also prayed for quashing and setting aside the order as contained in letter No.1438/M, dated 03.12.2016 issued by the respondent no.3, whereby settlement of Kala Dumaria Sand Ghat 3 made in favour of the petitioner has been cancelled by forfeiting the security deposit and 40% of the highest bid amount deposited by it.

4. W.P.(C) No. 3880 of 2021 has been filed for issuance of direction upon the respondent authorities to refund total amount of security deposit of Rs.16,88,000/- and 40% of the highest bid amount of Rs.67,52,000/- deposited by the petitioner as earnest money; total Rs.84,40,000/- with respect to 'Hanwara Sand Ghat Mining Project' on Geruwa River situated at Village Hanwara in the District of Godda, measuring 14.14 acres. Further prayer has been made for issuance of direction upon the respondent authorities to pay interest @ 18% per annum on the amount refundable to the petitioner towards the aforesaid security deposit and 40% of the highest bid amount from the date of deposit till the date of actual payment. The petitioner has also prayed for quashing and setting aside the order as contained in letter No.1439/M, dated 03.12.2016 issued by respondent no.3, whereby settlement of Hanwara Sand Ghat made in favour of the petitioner has been cancelled by forfeiting the security deposit and 40% of the highest bid amount deposited by it.

5. W.P.(C) No. 3885 of 2021 has been filed for issuance of direction upon the respondent authorities to refund total amount of security deposit of Rs.7,77,500/- and 40% of the highest Bid amount of Rs.31,10,000/- deposited by the petitioner as earnest money; total Rs.38,87,500/- with respect to 'Sanaur Sand Ghat Mining Project' on Geruwa River situated at Village Sanaur in the District of Godda, measuring an area of 25.06 acres. Further prayer has been made for issuance of direction upon the respondent authorities to pay interest @ 18% per annum on the amount refundable to the petitioner towards the aforesaid security deposit and 40% of the highest bid amount from the date of deposit till the date of actual payment. The petitioner has also prayed for quashing and setting aside the order as contained in letter No.1436/M, dated 03.12.2016 issued by the respondent no.3, whereby settlement of Sanaur Sand Ghat made in favour of the petitioner has been cancelled by forfeiting the security deposit and 40% of the highest bid amount deposited by it.

6. W.P.(C) No. 3886 of 2021 has been filed for issuance of direction upon the respondent authorities to refund the total amount of security deposit of Rs.11,27,500/- and 40% of the highest bid amount of Rs.45,10,000/- deposited by the petitioner as earnest money; total 4 Rs.56,37,500/- with respect to 'Ramkol Sand Ghat Mining Project' on Geruwa River situated at Village Ramkol in the District of Godda, measuring an area of 13.66 acres. Further prayer has been made for issuance of direction upon the respondent authorities to pay interest @ 18% per annum on the amount refundable to the petitioner towards the aforesaid security deposit and 40% of the highest bid amount from the date of deposit till the date of actual payment. The petitioner has also prayed for quashing and setting aside the order as contained in letter No.1433/M, dated 03.12.2016 issued by respondent no.3, whereby settlement of Ramkol Sand Ghat made in favour of the petitioner has been cancelled by forfeiting the security deposit and 40% of the highest bid amount deposited by it.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in terms with Rule 12 of the Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2004, the respondent no.3 vide Public Notice dated 30th March, 2015 invited applications for allotment/settlement of various Sand Ghats in Godda District for the financial years 2015-16 to 2017-18. The petitioner participated in the said auction process and was allotted altogether seven Sand Ghats including the Sand Ghats involved in the present batch of writ petitions. The petitioner deposited the assigned security money as well as 40% of the highest bid amount for the said Sand Ghats and was accordingly issued letters of intent. As per the letters of intent issued to the petitioner, it was required to obtain environmental clearance by preparing mining plans with respect to each allotted Sand Ghats. As such, the petitioner took due steps in that regard and its mining plans were duly approved by the competent authority and environmental clearances were also granted to it by respondent No.6-State Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority, Jharkhand (hereinafter to be referred to as 'SEIAA') with respect to Vade Sand Ghats [W.P.(C) No.3809 of 2021], Sahikitta Sand Ghat [W.P.(C) No. 3810 of 2021] and Kala Dumaria Sand Ghat [W.P.(C) No.3811 of 2021]. Subsequent to approval of mining plans and grant of environmental clearances by the competent authority, formal lease deeds for the aforesaid Sand Ghats were executed between the petitioner and the respondent no.3. Thereafter, the petitioner commenced its mining operation of excavation of sand from the aforesaid Sand Ghats and carried out excavation for some period of time.

5

8. It is further submitted that OA No.108/2015/EZ (Niranjan Sharma & Ors. Vs. Ministry of Environment, Forest & Ors.) was filed before the National Green Tribunal, Eastern Zone Bench, Kolkata objecting the allotment of Sand Ghats on Geruwa River in the District of Godda on the ground that the said allotment by Respondent-State of Jharkhand was contrary to the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Deepak Kumar Vs. State of Haryana and Others reported in 2012 (4) SCC 629. The National Green Tribunal vide its order dated 9th November 2015 passed an interim order in O.A. No.108/2015/EZ, directing the Respondent-State of Jharkhand to act in accordance with the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Deepak Kumar (Supra.) and to file action taken report.

9. It is also submitted that pursuant to the aforesaid order passed by the National Green Tribunal, Eastern Zone Bench, Kolkata, the Environmental Clearances which were already granted in favour of the petitioner for the aforesaid Sand Ghats were withdrawn by Respondent No.6 and a decision was thereafter taken by the said respondent not to grant any further environmental clearance in respect of any Sand Mining Project over Geruwa River. Pursuant to the said decision of the respondent no.6, the respondent no.3 vide its letter no.1294/M dated 12.12.2015 issued an order directing the petitioner to immediately stop excavation of sand from the said Sand Ghats. It is further submitted that in view of the said decision, the petitioner was not granted environmental clearances for Hanwara Sand Ghat [W.P.(C) No.3880 of 2021], Sanaur Sand Ghat [W.P.(C) No. 3885 of 2021] and Ramkol Sand Ghat [W.P.(C) No. 3886 of 2021] due to which excavation was not done in those Sand Ghats even for a single day. The petitioner thereafter filed repeated representations before the respondent no. 3 and other authorities requesting them to refund the amount of security deposit and 40% of the highest Bid amount deposited by it as earnest money especially in view of the fact that it was restrained from carrying out mining activities without any fault on its part. However, notices were issued to the petitioner vide letter No.1409/M dated 29.11.2016 concerning W.P.(C) No.3809 of 2021, letter No.1407/M dated 29.11.2016 concerning W.P.(C) No.3810 of 2021, letter No.1406/M dated 29.11.2016 concerning W.P.(C) No.3811 of 2021, letter No.1403/M dated 29.11.2016 concerning W.P.(C) No.3880 of 2021, 6 letter No.1404/M dated 29.11.2016 concerning W.P.(C) No.3885 of 2021 and letter No.1405/M dated 29.11.2022 concerning W.P.(C) No.3886 of 2021, directing it to show cause as to why its allotment of Sand Ghats be not cancelled by forfeiting the security deposits and earnest money deposited with respect to the said Sand Ghats in view of the fact that environmental clearances granted in its favour were cancelled by the respondent No.6 pursuant to the order passed by National Green Tribunal, Eastern Zone Bench, Kolkata. The petitioner replied the said letters stating that it was not at fault in any manner regarding withdrawal of its environmental clearances and, hence, a request was made to the respondent authorities to refund the security deposit and 40% of the highest bid amount deposited by the petitioner with respect to each Sand Gha pursuant to public auction and issuance of letters of intent in its favour. However, the respondent no.3 vide impugned letter nos.1434/M, 1437/M, 1438/M, 1439/M, 1436/M and 1433/M, all dated 3.12.2016 cancelled the allotment of the aforesaid Sand Ghats and further directed for forfeiture of the security deposit as well as 40% of the highest bid amount deposited by the petitioner for each Sand Ghat.

10. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the action of the respondent no.3 in cancelling the allotment of the Sand Ghats with consequential direction for forfeiture of the security amount and deposited bid amount is patently illegal and arbitrary especially because there was no fault on the part of the petitioner. The petitioner was made to suffer as its environmental clearances granted for the aforesaid Sand Ghats were either withdrawn or not issued pursuant to the order passed by the National Green Tribunal, Eastern Zone Bench, Kolkata in Original Application being OA No.108/2015/EZ over which it had no control. The petitioner though responded to the show cause notices, however, in the impugned orders cancelling the allotment of the said Sand Ghats as well as forfeiting the security deposit and 40% of the highest bid amount, it has wrongly been mentioned that it did not file its reply to the said show cause notices. Thus, the impugned order is also in violation of the principles of natural justice. The petitioner filed representation(s) dated 6.12.2019 and 22.10.2020 before the respondent nos.3 and 4 requesting them to refund its security deposit and 40% of the highest bid amount, however all went in vein.

7

11. It is further submitted that in respect of one of the Sand Ghats of the petitioner, namely, Mahesh Tikri Sand Ghat, issuance of show cause notice was challenged by it by filing a writ petition being W.P.(C) No.7043 of 2016, in which an interim order was passed by this Court on 14.12.2016, directing the respondents not to forfeit the security deposit and the earnest money deposited by the petitioner, if not already forfeited. However, prior to passing of the aforesaid order by this Court, the order of cancellation of allotment of said Sand Ghats and forfeiture of security deposit as well as 40% of the highest bid amount was already passed by the respondent no.3. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an interlocutory application, challenging the subsequent development pursuant to the said interim order dated 14.12.2016, as the respondent no.3 considered the case of the petitioner for refund of security deposit as well as bid amount deposited by it with respect to seven sand Ghats settled to it and requested the Mines Commissioner, Department of Industry, Mines and Geology, Government of Jharkhand vide letter no.288 dated 07.03.2017 to issue order for releasing the aforesaid refundable amount in favour of the petitioner, however, the same has not been refunded to it till date.

12. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that the respondent authorities have already refunded the security deposit and 40% of the bid amount in favour of M/s. Dhanbad Wine and Md. Siddique Alam, who were also similarly allotted Sand Ghats in the district of Godda situated over Geruwa River and their Sand Ghats were cancelled by the respondent authorities in similar fashion, forfeiting their security deposit and 40% of bid amount. M/s Dhanbad Wine filed a writ petition being W.P.(C) No.486 of 2017 and Md. Siddique Alam filed W.P.(C) No.2754 of 2018 and both the aforesaid writ petitions were decided vide order dated 21.02.2018 and 01.10.2018, respectively, directing the respondent-authorities to refund the security deposit and 40% of the bid amount to the said petitioners.

13. It is further submitted that on the one hand the amount deposited towards security deposit and 40% of the bid amount has already been refunded to M/s Dhanbad Wine and Md. Siddique Alam, however, on the other hand, the petitioner has been denied the said refund in spite of repeated requests made to the respondent authorities. Due to the said discriminatory attitude of the respondent authorities, the petitioner is deprived of its legal right as its legally refundable amount 8 has arbitrarily been withheld by them and, thus, the petitioner is also entitled to claim interest on the said refundable amount.

14. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that 40% of the highest bid amount and security deposit of the petitioner have been forfeited for non-compliance of the terms and conditions as laid down in Clauses-7 and 10 of Public Auction Notice. It is submitted that the claim of the petitioner is not maintainable as Clause 10 of public auction notice clearly speaks that the Government shall not be responsible for any loss to the settlee for any hindrance occurring after settlement and the settlee shall not be entitled to make any claim over the deposited bid amount and security amount.

15. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. The petitioner is claiming refund of the security deposit and 40% of the highest bid amount which was deposited by it for allotment of the Sand Ghats in question on the ground that the allotments have been cancelled by the respondent no.3 in view of the order passed by the National Green Tribunal, Eastern Zone Bench, Kolkata in Original Application being OA No. 108/2015/EZ without any fault/violation on the part of the petitioner.

16. Learned counsel for the petitioner puts much reliance on the judgments of this Court rendered in the cases of M/s Dhanbad Wine Vs. The State of Jharkhand & Others, reported in 2018 (3) JLJR 688; and Md. Siddique Alam Vs. The State of Jharkhand & Others, reported in (W.P.C No. 2754 of 2018) and submits that the present batch of writ petitions are squarely covered by the said judgments.

17. Perused the judgment of this Court rendered in the case of M/s Dhanbad Wine (Supra.) wherein cancellation of Pathargama Sand Ghat on Gerua River was challenged with a further claim for refund of security deposit and 40% of the bid amount deposited for allotment of the said Sand Ghat. The contention of the State respondents in that case was that the petitioner did not submit the environment clearance certificate pursuant to the settlement and thus the security amount and 40% of the bid amount were forfeited. This court rejected the said contention of the State respondents and quashed the order forfeiting security money and 40% of the bid amount deposited by the said petitioner with a further direction to the respondents to refund the said 9 amount deposited by it. The relevant observations made in the said judgment reads thus:-

9. In the present writ petition, the petitioner's prayer is confined to the issue of forfeiture of its security deposit and 40 % of the bid amount at the instance of the respondent no.2. It is a settled law that the order of forfeiture of security deposit cannot be passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. On perusal of the impugned show cause notice contained in letter No. 1393/M dated 29.11.2010, it appears that in the said show cause notice itself, the respondent no.2 has mentioned that the NGT, Kolkata in O.A No. 108/2015/EZ has directed for cancellation of settlement of the sand ghats. The petitioner in its reply to the said show cause notice explained the reason for not submitting the environment clearance by stating that in view of pendency of O.A No. 108/2015/EZ, the SEIAA was not granting the environment clearance. However, while passing the impugned order of termination of settlement of sand ghat as well as forfeiture of security and 40 % of the bid amount, the respondent no. 2 has not dealt with the said reply of the petitioner and has passed the impugned order in a cryptic manner. The entire exercise by the respondents indicate that the said action was taken as mere formality and they appear to have started the proceeding with a pre-occupied notion. The compliance of principles of natural justice is not a mere formality, rather the same must be followed in true sense. One of the essential requirements of the principles of natural justice is due consideration of the reply of the delinquent, which has not been followed in the present case. Though, learned counsel for the respondent no. 3 has submitted that no application was received from the petitioner for grant of environment clearance, the same would not have changed the position as it is the specific stand of the respondent no.3 that at the relevant time, the environment clearance was not being granted in view of the orders passed by the NGT, Kolkata in O.A No. 108/2015/EZ. Thus, the petitioner cannot be held responsible for not submitting the environment clearance before the respondent authorities as per the terms and conditions of the public auction notice."

18. In the case of Md. Siddique Alam (Supra.), the petitioner of the said case had challenged the cancellation of settlement of Chanaichank Sand Mining Project on Geruwa River and had claimed for refund of security deposit and 40% of the bid amount deposited by him for allotment of the said Sand Ghat. The said case was also allowed by this Court vide order dated 01.10.2018 and the impugned letter forfeiting the security deposit and 40% of the bid amount was quashed with a further direction to the respondents to refund the amount deposited by the petitioner of that case as security money and 40% of the bid amount.

19. In the case in hand, the petitioner was allotted the aforesaid Sand Ghats in auction and it deposited security amount as well as 40% of the highest bid amount as per the terms and conditions of the allotment. The petitioner was also granted environmental clearances by SEIAA for three Sand Ghats over which it had also made excavation for some time, however, subsequently the environmental clearances granted to it were withdrawn in view of the order passed by the National Green Tribunal in O.A No. 108/2015/EZ (Niranjan Sharma & Others Vs. Ministry of Environment, Forest & Others.). So far as 10 Hanwara Sand Ghat, Sanaur Sand Ghat and Ramkol Sand Ghat are concerned, the environmental clearances were not granted to the petitioner in view of the order passed in the aforesaid case due to which excavation in the said sand Ghats was not started. On bare perusal of the show cause notices issued to the petitioner for cancellation of allotment of the aforesaid Sand Ghats, it would be apparent that the same were issued in view of the order passed by the National Green Tribunal in O.A No.108/2015/EZ and thereafter the petitioner filed reply requesting the respondent no.3 to refund the security deposit and 40% of the highest bid amount deposited by it as earnest money for allotment of the said Sand Ghats. Finally, the respondent no.3 cancelled the allotment of said Sand Ghats and directed to forfeit the security deposit and 40% of the highest bid amount deposited by the petitioner with respect to each Sand Ghat.

20. This Court is of the view that since the environmental clearances for the said Sand Ghats were withdrawn/not granted pursuant to the aforesaid order passed by the National Green Tribunal, Kolkata, the petitioner cannot be held liable for the said situation. The petitioner had submitted its responses to the show cause notices explaining the allegations levelled against it, however, the same were not considered by the respondent no.3, rather the said authority passed the impugned order in a very cryptic manner which certainly suffers from violation of the principles of natural justice. Thus, the entire exercise of the respondent no.3 appears to be mere formality done with pre-occupied mind.

21. Learned counsel for the petitioner also puts reliance on a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of New Horizon Limited and Another Vs. Union of India & Others, reported in (1995) 1 SCC 478, wherein it has been held that the Government must have freedom of contract, however, the decision of the Government must not only conform to the Wednesbury principle of reasonableness, but must also be free from arbitrariness, biasness and mala fides.

22. In view of the aforesaid factual and legal position, the petitioner is entitled for refund of the security deposit and proportionate/total deposited bid amount for the period during which it could not be able to excavate sand in view of the order passed by the National Green Tribunal, Kolkata in O.A No. 108/2015/EZ.

11

23. So far as the petitioner's claim for interest is concerned, this Court has perused the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the cases of Dharmendra Kumar Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others, reported in (2021) 1 SCC 93; and Union of India Vs. Vertex Broadcasting Company Private Limited and Others, reported in (2015) 16 SCC 198, as has been relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner. In the case of Dharmendra Kumar Singh (Supra.), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has awarded simple interest @ 9% per annum on the security deposit and advance royalty paid by the appellant of that case in exercise of the power conferred under section 142 of the Constitution of India to do complete justice and keeping in mind that the appellant's money remained blocked and mining work was prevented for no fault on his part despite succeeding in earlier legal proceedings. In the said case, there was delay in issuance of notification by the State Government under Section 20 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 and due to such delay, the National Green Tribunal had prohibited the appellant from mining on the leased area.

24. In the case of Vertex Broadcasting Company Private Limited (Supra.), Hon'ble Supreme Court has directed for refund of forfeited licence fee and earnest money along with interest @ 6% per annum holding that the appellant-Union of India had unilaterally departed from tender conditions and had incorporated new/additional terms and conditions in letter of intent and the draft licence agreements. The respondents declined to abide by the new conditions and as such the forfeiture of money was not tenable.

25. In both the aforesaid cases, as has been relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner, there was latches/fault on the part of the State Government due to which interest was awarded considering their factual context. However, in the present case, neither the State Government nor the petitioner was at fault rather the petitioner was prevented from mining sand from the Sand Ghats in question pursuant to the order passed by the National Green Tribunal, Eastern Zone Bench, Kolkata in O.A No. 108/2015/EZ. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to grant any interest on the refund of securities deposit and proportionate/total deposited bid amount as has been claimed by the petitioner.

12

26. Thus, the impugned letter no.1434/M dated 3rd December, 2016 concerning W.P.(C) No.3809 of 2021; letter no.1437/M dated 3 rd December, 2016 concerning W.P.(C) No.3810 of 2021; letter no.1438/M dated 3rd December, 2016 concerning W.P.(C) No.3811/2021; letter no.1439/M dated 3rd December, 2022 concerning W.P.(C) No.3880 of 2021; letter no.1436/M dated 3rd December, 2016 concerning W.P.(C) No.3885 of 2021; and letter no.1433/M dated 3 rd December, 2022 concerning W.P.(C) No.3886 of 2021 are hereby quashed. The petitioner is granted liberty to file separate applications before the respondent no.2 for release of the security deposit and proportionate/total deposited bid amount with respect to concerned Sand Ghats specifying the period for which it had made excavation. The respondent no.2 on receipt of the said applications shall release the security deposit as well as proportionate/total deposited bid amount of the petitioner verifying the period of excavation done by it. The said exercise shall be completed by the respondent no.2 within one month from the date of filing of the applications by the petitioner.

27. These writ petitions are, accordingly, disposed of with the aforesaid liberty and direction.

(Rajesh Shankar, J.) Sanjay/AFR