JUDGMENT 1. - Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. Appellants have preferred this intra-court appeal against the order dated 6th July, 2011 passed by learned Single Bench, whereby S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.6445/2011 filed by petitioner/respondent was disposed off with a direction to the appellants/respondents to refund the amount of earnest money amounting to Rs. 1.69 crores within four weeks. 3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that petitioner/respondent filed a writ petition before learned Single Bench with a prayer that impugned order dated 5th May, 2011 passed by respondent No.3 be quashed and set aside and respondents be directed to execute the contract in pursuance of tender notification dated 7th February, 2011 or in alternate to refund the amount of forfeiture security deposit Rs. 1.69 crores to petitioner. 4. During the pendency of the writ petition, the petitioner filed an application for amendment in the writ petition, whereby he incorporated para 7(a), ground No.(H) and prayer No.(iv). The application was allowed along with final disposal of the writ petition vide order dated 6th July, 2011, which is impugned in this special appeal. As per amended prayer No. (iv), the petitioner also made a prayer to quash and set aside the order dated 3rd May, 2011. 5. The petitioner averred in the writ petition that respondent issued tender notification dated 7th February, 2011 for inviting bid for contract of collection of royalty of minerals at various divisions under Rules 32, 33B, 33C, 33D, 36, 37 and 37A of the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1986 (for short `the Rules of 1986'). The petitioner company applied for the bid at District Jhunjhunu for Tehsil Khetri and Buhana Revenue Area on S.No.28 of the tender notification, which was Cheza Pattahr. The security deposit amount for the aforesaid tender was Rs. 1.69 crores, which was required to be submitted as per the Rules. The petitioner deposited the said amount. The bid was opened and petitioner was the highest bidder and got selected for the contract. The petitioner waited long for approval letter, but when after lapse of long period, he did not receive the communication, then he himself enquired into the office of the respondent on 28th March, 2011 and it was informed that approval letter has already been issued to him on 14th March, 2011. The petitioner thereafter completed all the formalities. The petitioner waited long for approval letter, but when after lapse of long period, he did not receive the communication, then he himself enquired into the office of the respondent on 28th March, 2011 and it was informed that approval letter has already been issued to him on 14th March, 2011. The petitioner thereafter completed all the formalities. It was pleaded that there was no fault on the part of the petitioner and if there was any delay in submitting or completing the formalities, then it was on the part of the Department. It was, therefore, prayed that orders dated 3rd May, 2011 and 5th May, 2011 be quashed and set aside and respondents be directed to execute the contract in pursuance of tender notification dated 7th February, 2011 or in alternate to refund the amount of forfeiture security deposit of Rs. 1.69 crores. 6. The respondents filed their reply to the writ petition, wherein it was submitted that the sanction order for the collection of royalty in favour of petitioner was revoked vide order dated 3rd May, 2011, which was dispatched to the petitioner. The order dated 5th May, 2011 is only a consequential order. The petitioner has challenged only the order dated 5th May, 2011 and has not challenged the main order i.e. order dated 3rd May, 2011 (It is relevant to mention that by way of an amendment, the order dated 3rd May, 2011 was also challenged subsequently). The respondents in their reply also submitted that order dated 5th May, 2011 was appealable under Rule 43 of the Rules of 1986; the order dated 3rd May, 2011 was also revisable under Rule 47 of the Rules of 1986, but petitioner, without availing an alternative remedy, has approached this Court directly, therefore, writ petition is liable to be dismissed on this ground. It was also averred in the reply that after depositing the earnest money, the petitioner was trying to wriggle out of the tender process. It was also averred in the reply that after depositing the earnest money, the petitioner was trying to wriggle out of the tender process. The petitioner was aware of the amount, which was required to be deposited by him against the security as well as the bank guarantee as also the duration of the bank guarantee within 15 days of the sanction and further by the petitioner's own admission he enquired on the office of the respondent on 28th March, 2011 and learnt of the sanction order dated 14th March, 2011, within 24 hours he deposited the bank guarantee of Rs. 2.53 crores which is a guarantee amount and Rs. 1,26,42,000 F.D.R. against the security. Although these two conditions were complied with, but petitioner deliberately proceeded contrary to Rule 33-B of the Rules of 1986 and deposited only 7.5 per cent of security rather than 10 per cent enjoined under Rule 33-B of the Rules of 1986. Even though, the petitioner has stated that the remaining value of Rs. 42,13,200 shall be adjusted against the amount already deposited vide Annexure-4, the amount would still be deficient of the legally required sum. Even by including this amount the security amount does not reach the required 10 per cent level. The other facts and objections were also mentioned and it was prayed that writ petition be dismissed. 7. The learned Single Bench in its impugned order dated 6th July, 2011 quoted the previous order dated 10th May, 2011 and thereafter observed that prima-facie no fault could have been attributed to the petitioner in not having complied with the terms of the requirement for submitting the bank guarantee and in fact in any event so far as the petitioner is concerned, as has been noticed in the order dated 10th May, 2011, the petitioner took all necessary steps for submitting the bank guarantee, which the respondents have not accepted. The learned Single Judge disposed off the writ petition with the direction to the respondents to refund the amount of earnest money amounting to Rs. 1.69 crores. 8. Shri G.S. Bapna, learned Advocate General, appearing along with Mr. The learned Single Judge disposed off the writ petition with the direction to the respondents to refund the amount of earnest money amounting to Rs. 1.69 crores. 8. Shri G.S. Bapna, learned Advocate General, appearing along with Mr. Veyankatesh Garg, submitted that learned Single Bench has not considered the grounds/reasons contained in order dated 3rd May, 2011, which was not even initially challenged and only by way of an amendment in the writ petition, the same was allowed to be challenged, the amendment was allowed by impugned order, therefore, they could not get any opportunity to file any further reply to the amended writ petition. He further submitted that as per Rule 37 of the Rules of 1986, it was mandatory that tenderer should have completed with the terms and conditions within 15 days from the date of the sanction and not from the date of information of acceptance of bid. No application was filed for extension of time also. The petitioner failed to comply with the mandatory provisions of law, therefore, the orders dated 3rd May, 2011 and 5th May, 2011 were rightly passed. It was also submitted that both the orders were appealable and revisable and without availing an opportunity of alternative remedy, the writ petition was filed directly before this Hon'ble Court, but from the order impugned, it is clear that none of the arguments, as taken in the reply to writ petition, were considered nor the provisions of law as contained in Rules 33B, 33C, 33D, 37 have been considered. He submitted that although the petitioner restricted his prayer to the refund of the earnest money, but even if it was allowed to do so, then at least whether reasons assigned in the order dated 3rd May, 2011 were in accordance with law or not, should have been examined by speaking order. The impugned order is totally based on previous order dated 10th May, 2011 wherein only submissions of petitioner were mentioned and time was granted to respondents to file reply, therefore, only on the basis of submissions of petitioner, the writ petition has been allowed. The impugned order cannot be said to be valid, reasoned or speaking order. 9. The impugned order is totally based on previous order dated 10th May, 2011 wherein only submissions of petitioner were mentioned and time was granted to respondents to file reply, therefore, only on the basis of submissions of petitioner, the writ petition has been allowed. The impugned order cannot be said to be valid, reasoned or speaking order. 9. Learned counsel for respondents defended the impugned order and submitted that the petitioner not only amended its writ petition by incorporating the prayer to quash the order dated 3rd May, 2011, but a rejoinder was also filed to the reply to writ petition, wherein it was specifically mentioned that there was no fault on the part of the petitioner and orders dated 3rd May, 2011 and 5th May, 2011 were wrongly passed. 10. We have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and examined the impugned order and also the averments of the writ petition, reply and rejoinder. 11. From the impugned order, it appears that the submissions of petitioner, as mentioned in the earlier order dated 10th May, 2011, were considered as the order dated 10th May, 2011 itself was quoted in the impugned order. The objection of the respondents about non-compliance of Rules 33B, 33C, 33D and 37 of the Rules of 1986 has not been considered at all. We have examined the order dated 3rd May, 2011 and we find that reasons assigned in the order have not been considered along with the provisions contained in the Rules, as referred above. The other objections taken in the reply ought to have been considered even if prayer in the writ petition was restricted by the petitioner only to the extent of refund of amount of earnest money. In these circumstances, we are of the view that instead of examining the matter in detail on merits, it will be appropriate to remit the matter to learned Single Bench for deciding the case afresh by a reasoned order after hearing both the parties and considering the objections taken in the reply to writ petition and various provisions of law, which have been quoted in the reply itself. 12. Consequently, special appeal is allowed; the impugned order is set aside and matter is remitted back to the learned Single Bench for deciding the writ petition afresh on merits. The stay application also stands disposed of 13. 12. Consequently, special appeal is allowed; the impugned order is set aside and matter is remitted back to the learned Single Bench for deciding the writ petition afresh on merits. The stay application also stands disposed of 13. Learned counsel for the respondent has made a prayer that writ petition be directed to be listed at an early date. The prayer is not opposed by learned Advocate General also. Consequently, we direct the registry to list the writ petition before appropriate Single Bench in the first week of February, 2012.Appeal allowed. *******