Judgment Chandramauli Kr.Prasad, J. 1. This application has been filed for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to make proportionate reduction of the bid amount offered by the petitioner for settlement of the Sand-Ghat. Further prayer made by the petitioner is to quash the order dated 7.9.2002 (Annexure-5) passed by the Collector forfeiting the amount deposited by it and the order dated 22.8.2003 (Annexure-6) passed by the Commissioner affirming the same. 2. Shorn of unnecessary details facts giving rise to the present application are that an auction was held on 11.12.2001 for settlement of Sand-Ghat, namely, Rampur Bindgawam. Balwan Tola, Singhi Khas Mahal situate in the district of Saran for the calender year 2002 i.e. 1.1.2002 to 31.12.2002. Petitioner offered to take the settlement for a sum of Rs. 17,05,000.00 which was the highest bid. When no order for settlement was issued, petitioner filed application before the Mines Commissioner, inter alia, praying for a direction to the Collector to issue order for settlement of the said Sand-Ghat in favour of the petitioner, which was registered as revision case No. 5 of 2002. 3. It seems that one Purana Pannapur Panchayat Sahyog Samiti, hereinafter referred to as the society, filed application before the Mines Commissioner and offered to take settlement of those Sand-Ghats for which the petitioner was the highest bidder for an amount more than offered by it by 12 per cent. The Mines Commissioner referred the said offer of the society to the Collector, who, in turn, submitted the record concerning the settlement of the Ghats containing the claim of the petitioner and that of the society to the State Government. The State Government decided to accept the offer of the society and order dated 15.3.2002 was sent by the Government to the Collector by fax communicating its decision. Consequently, the Collector, by letter dated 16.3.2002 communicated the decision to the society to settle the Sand-Ghat in its favour and accordingly, the society was asked to deposit the amount. Petitioner, aggrieved by the same, brought the said fact to the notice of the Mines Commissioner in the revision application filed by it earlier i.e. revision No. 5 of 2002 and the Mines Commissioner, by order dated 16.3.2002, stayed the settlement directed to be made in favour of the society. Petitioner, aggrieved by the same, brought the said fact to the notice of the Mines Commissioner in the revision application filed by it earlier i.e. revision No. 5 of 2002 and the Mines Commissioner, by order dated 16.3.2002, stayed the settlement directed to be made in favour of the society. Ultimately, the Mines Commissioner, by order dated 11.5.2003 set aside the order of the Collector dated 16.3.2002 directing the settlement of the Sand-Ghat in favour of the society. The society impugned the said order by filing a writ application before this Court which was registered as CWJC No. 6329 of 2002, Parana Pannapur Panchayat Sahyog Samiti V/s. The State of Bihar and Ors., and this Court, by order dated 23.8.2002 (Annexure-2), declined to grant any relief to the society but while dismissing the writ application, it observed that all deposits including the security deposits made by the society, shall be refunded. In the meanwhile, on 18.5.2002, the settlement order was issued and the petitioner started operating the mines. 4. It is relevant here to state that when the settlement was subsisting, petitioner filed application dated 7.6.2002 (Annexure-3) before the Collector for proportionate reduction of the bid amount offered for settlement of the Sand-Ghat on the ground of delay in making settlement. However, before any decision could be taken on the said prayer of the petitioner, by letter dated 23.8.2002, the Assistant Mining Officer wrote to the petitioner to. deposit the balance amount by 31.8.2002 and it is an admitted position that the petitioner deposited the amount directed by the Assistant Mining Officer, not in the form of treasury challan but by bank draft and cash. 5. The society had not left the petitioner chasing and it filed application before the Collector that the petitioner having not deposited the amount before 31st of July, 2002 in terms of the order of settlement, but had deposited the amount on 31.8.2002, the settlement made in its favour be cancelled. The application filed by the society was registered as misc. case No. 20 of 2002. The Collector, by order dated 17.9.2002 (Annexure-5), directed for cancellation of the settlement and for re-auction of the Sand-Ghat for the remaining period and forfeiture of the amount deposited by the petitioner. The application filed by the society was registered as misc. case No. 20 of 2002. The Collector, by order dated 17.9.2002 (Annexure-5), directed for cancellation of the settlement and for re-auction of the Sand-Ghat for the remaining period and forfeiture of the amount deposited by the petitioner. While doing so, the Collector observed that the Assistant Mining Officer in ordinary course of business, had sent reminder for deposit of the balance amount which cannot be construed to be extension of the time granted for deposit. 6. Aggrieved by the aforesaid, petitioner filed revision before the Mines Commissioner which was registered as revision case No. 13 of 2002 and by order dated 22.8.2003 (Annexure-6) said revision application was dismissed. 7. While considering the claim of the petitioner for proportionate reduction, it observed that in case it is allowed, the lessee would resort to delaying tactics and illegal extraction of the sand shall continue. 8. Mr. P.K. Verma, appearing on behalf of the petitioner contends that the petitioner participated in an auction held on 11.12.2001 for settlement of the Sand-Ghat for the period 1.1.2002 to 31.12.2002 and although he had deposited the amount in terms of the settlement, settlement order was issued on 18.5.2002 and thereafter, it started operating the mines and therefore, the petitioner is entitled for proportionate reduction of the bid amount. He points out that the petitioner having not operated the mines for the period it was settled for no fault on its part, the bid amount is to be proportionately reduced. In support of his submission, he has placed reliance on a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Jai Durga Finvist Pvt. Ltd. V/s. State of Haryana and Ors., AIR 2004 SC 1484 and my attention has been drawn to the following passages from the said judgment:- - "9. xxx It is an admitted fact that the appellant did not operate the Bega Murthal Sand Zone, even if by their own choice, but facts remain that they did not derive any benefit from the contract. On the other hand they had bound themselves by condition No. 18-A of the contract agreement not to seek any relief in payment of conduct money on the plea of non extraction of sand. 11. On the other hand they had bound themselves by condition No. 18-A of the contract agreement not to seek any relief in payment of conduct money on the plea of non extraction of sand. 11. xxx As the High Court, as noticed hereinbefore, has merely proceeded on the basis that the appellant had entered into the contract with his eyes wide open, but, the same would not, in our opinion, mean that they were bound to pay the contract amount, get its security amount forfeited, as also pay interest at the rate of 24 per cent, although it could not, by reasons of acts of omission and commission on the part of the respondents, carry out the mining operation as per the terms of the agreement." (Underlining Mine) 9. Mr. Rajendra Prasad, JC to Special Public Prosecutor representing the respondents, however, contends that in case the petitioner had not operated the mines, it has to blame itself for that and hence, no proportionate reduction of the bid amount is permissible. 10. Having appreciated the rival submission, I find substance in the submission of Mr. Verma. Petitioner was given settlement order on 18.5.2002 and the delay had not occurred on account of any act of the petitioner. As stated earlier, the society offered to take settlement for a sum more than 12 per cent than what was offered by the petitioner, which was forwarded by the State Government to the Collector, who in turn, sent the entire file to the State Government which ultimately accepted the offer of the society. Further, the order for settlement of the Ghat in favour of the society was set aside by the Mines Commissioner by order dated 11.5.2002 and only thereafter, the settlement order dated 18.5.2002 was issued in favour of the petitioner which started operating the mines. From the facts stated above, it is evident that delay in issuance of the settlement order cannot be attributed to the petitioner and as such, petitioner shall be entitled for proportionate reduction of the bid amount. The view which I have taken finds support from the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Jai Durga Finvist Pvt. Ltd. (supra). 11. Mr. The view which I have taken finds support from the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Jai Durga Finvist Pvt. Ltd. (supra). 11. Mr. Verma then contends that the order of the Collector which has been affirmed by the Mines Commissioner forfeiting the amount deposited by the petitioner, are also illegal and this is a fit case in which the writ of mandamus deserves to be issued for refund of the forfeited amount. 12. It is relevant here to state that the petitioners settlement has been cancelled by the Collector by order dated 17.9.2002 on the ground that in terms of the settlement, the balance amount was to be deposited by 31st of July, 2002 but, in fact, the said amount was deposited on 31.8.2002. It is an admitted fact that the Assistant Mining Officer, by letter dated 23.8.2002, asked the petitioner to deposit the balance amount by 31st of August, 2002 and in fact, the petitioner deposited the said amount. When a functionary of the State asked the petitioner to deposit the amount by a particular date, the petitioner having complied with the said direction, its settlement ought not to have been cancelled on the ground that he did not comply with the terms of the original settlement which provided for payment of the balance amount by 31st of July, 2002. In my opinion, petitioner having deposited the amount within the time granted by the Assistant Mining Officer, the deviation was not so grave that it would have called for extreme action of cancellation of the settlement itself and forfeiture of the amount deposited by the petitioner. As the period of settlement is already over, no further relief the petitioner shall be entitled except for the refund of the amount directed to be forfeited. 13. Accordingly, the respondents are directed to make proportionate reduction in the bid amount and amount forfeited by the respondents be refunded along with amount becoming due on account of proportionate reduction within four months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. 14. In the result, the application is allowed with the direction aforesaid with no order as regard the cost.