Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 1308 (PAT)

Rajendra Prasad Singh v. State of Bihar

2011-07-05

body2011
ORDER Heard Mr. Satyabir Bharti, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. V.M.K. Sinha, AAG-13 for the State. 2. Facts of the case are indisputed. There was settlement of sand ghats for the period 2007-2009 under the provisions of the Bihar Minor Mineral Concession (Amendment) Rules, 2006. The ghats were divided in two units, i.e. Unit I and Unit II. Whereas the reserve money for Unit I was Rs.1,55,073,60/-, the reserve jama for the Unit II ghat was Rs.39,062,640/-. In terms of Clause 6(i) of the tender notice, 10% of the reserve amount was to be deposited by way of earnest money. Clause 6(ii) of the tender notice further provides for forfeiture of the earnest money deposited on default committed by the tenderer in taking the• settlement and, inter alia, provides that if the highest bidder refuses to take the settlement or fails to comply with the formalities during the prescribed period, the State would be authorized to forfeit his earnest money. 3. Whereas the petitioner was the sole applicant for settlement of Unit I ghat, but for Unit II ghat, there were two applicants, namely, the petitioner and one Rajendra Prasad. The technical bids were opened on 18.12..2006 and as the petitioner was found to be the sole applicant for Unit I sand ghat, the respondents in the interest of fetching higher revenue, decided to re-advertise the same. The petitioner, on his part, in terms of the terms of the tender notice had deposited a sum of Rs.15,51,000/- by way of earnest money being the 10% of the reserve jama. 4. So far as the settlement of Unit II ghat is concerned, although the petitioner was declared a highest bidder and was required to deposit 10% of the amount but having failed to do so, his reserve jama was forfeited in terms of Clause 6(ii) of the tender notice and there is no dispute about that nor is it put to challenge in the application. 5. The dispute in the present application is in relation to non-refund of earnest money in respect of Unit I ghats to the tune of Rs.15,51,000/-. 6. 5. The dispute in the present application is in relation to non-refund of earnest money in respect of Unit I ghats to the tune of Rs.15,51,000/-. 6. Surprisingly, even when the State admits that as there was no contest in relation to Unit I ghat and it was the decision of the State to go for a fresh advertisement and as a consequence of which decision, the petitioner became entitled for refund of his earnest money but no steps were taken in this direction. 7. The State having failed to refund the earnest money, the petitioner has approached this court. It is rather strange that even when the position stands indisputed, the earnest money to the tune of Rs.15,51,000/- approximately, remains in the custody of the respondent State in the department of Mines. A statement has been made in the counter affidavit that the matter has been referred to the department for final decision. 8. Considering the circumstances and the stipulations of the tender notice present at Clause 6(ii) of the tender notice and taking into consideration the uncontested position that the petitioner is not at fault, this court is of the opinion that the respondent department can not withhold the earnest money of the petitioner and is duty bound to refund the same. 9. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to refund the earnest money deposited by the petitioner in relation to Unit I ghat to the tune of Rs.15,51,000/- within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. In case, the department fails to refund the amount within the aforesaid period, the petitioner would be entitled for interest at the rate of 10% per annum w.e.f. the expiry of the period of three months until the date on which the refund is made by the respondents.