JUDGMENT In this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for declaring the action of the Jharkhand State Mineral Development Corporation in issuing Tender Notice No.2006/1-Granite dated 7.1.2006 and all consequential acts relating to setting up a joint venture with regard to mining Granite from Sanga Mines as fraudulent and illegal and to quash order dated 12.11.2007 issued by the General Manager (Finance), Jharkhand State Mineral Development Corporation (for short JSMDC), whereby earnest money deposited by the petitioner was forfeited and the request for refund of earnest money of Rs. Two lacs has been rejected. The petitioner has also prayed for direction on the respondents to refund the earnest money deposited by the petitioner in connection with the Tender Notice No.2006/1-Granite dated 7.1.2006. 2. It has been stated that a tender was floated by the respondents in various newspapers inviting tenders for development of granite, etc. from interested bidders in collaboration with it under a joint venture agreement, by Tender Notice No.2006/1-Granite dated 7.1.2006. On the representation of the JSMDC, in the said notice inviting tender that it is under the process of obtaining leases in granite, the petitioner participated in tender process. 3. The petitioner's tender was accepted and the agreement was, thereafter, to be made. For that purpose a draft of joint venture agreement was furnished by the petitioner with covering letter dated 7.6.2006. 4. In the meantime, the petitioner inspected the site of Sanga Mines and also got information from reliable sources that Sanga mines was not in possession of the JSMDC. But ignoring the same, the JSMDC insisted for submitting the detail project report. The petitioner insisted for giving clarification about the rights of JSMDC over Sanga Mines, but JSMDC did not give any satisfactory reply. 5. The petitioner was always ready and willing to enter into an agreement and for that purpose he went on requesting the JSMDC to satisfy the petitioner about their nature of right over Sanga mines, but without supplying any documents and satisfying the petitioner, the JSMDC cancelled the petitioner's offer and Tender No.2006/1-Granite dated 7.1.2006 regarding forming of a joint venture company by its letter dated 27.10.2006 (Annexure-10) mentioning, inter alia, that the petitioner did not turn up. It has been submitted that on enquiry the petitioner became satisfied that Sanga mines is not in possession of JSMDC and the tender was colourable and without any authority. It has been submitted that on enquiry the petitioner became satisfied that Sanga mines is not in possession of JSMDC and the tender was colourable and without any authority. The petitioner, thus, requested the JSMDC by his letter dated 6.12.2006 addressed to the Managing Director to release the earnest money deposited by them. 6. Replying to the said letter, the respondents issued letter dated 4.5.2007 stating, inter alia, that the offer against Tender No.2006/1-Granite dated 7.1.2006 regarding forming of a joint venture company was approved by the Board of Directors but the finalisation of the agreement could not come to a logical end due to negligence of the petitioner. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that no granite mines was in possession of JSMDC and there was misleading representation on the part of the respondents regarding the so-called Sanga granite mines. The Government of Jharkhand had turned down the application of lease for Sanga granite mines specifically stating that the said land is a part of Civil Services Officers Co-operative Society Ltd. and no such mines is in possession of the JSMDC. The land, which was quoted for the purpose of granite mine, was not available for mining. The entire proposal to form a joint venture was sham and vitiated by misrepresentation. The notice inviting tender dated 7.1.2006 and the consequent agreement to form a joint venture were ab-anitio void. The petitioner is, thus, entitled to get his money back which was deposited as earnest money. The letter refusing refund is wholly arbitrary and illegal. 8. The JSMDC contested the writ petition by filing counter affidavit. It has been, inter-alia, stated that every initiative was taken by the Corporation to finalise the agreement, but the petitioner failed to perform his part to prepare project report and execute agreement. Sanga Mines was allocated to Bihar State Mineral Development Corporation. At the time of tender, process of getting a mining lease was underway and mining plan was submitted to the Department of Mines and Geology for approval. Offer to form a joint venture was long before the cancellation/rejection of Corporation application for release. The petitioner had no reason to delay execution of agreement of joint venture. Apart from Sanga mines, there were other mines. There was no reason for backing out from proposal. That was the breach of the terms of N.I.T. and the terms of Clause-VI(9) of the Tender Document. The petitioner had no reason to delay execution of agreement of joint venture. Apart from Sanga mines, there were other mines. There was no reason for backing out from proposal. That was the breach of the terms of N.I.T. and the terms of Clause-VI(9) of the Tender Document. The money has been forfeited, as the joint venture has not been formed due to negligence and laches on the part of the petitioner. 9. On going through the counter affidavit, I find that the respondents have not denied that at the time of tender there was no lease to extract granite from Sanga mines. The proposal made by the respondents was cancelled on the ground that the proposed land was under the lease of the Civil Services Officers Co-operative Society Ltd. for residential purpose. 10. It is, thus, clear that the respondents sought for entering into a joint venture on the basis of Sanga granite mines, but neither Sanga granite mines nor any other granite mines was in possession of the JSMDC. 11. Since the Sanga granite mines, as represented by the respondents, was non-existent by the time of floating of the tender which was the basis for forming a joint venture with the petitioner, seeking clarification by the petitioner and not executing agreement cannot be said to be without any reason or unjustified. It is admitted position that Sanga Granite Mines was a part of residential lease granted to the Civil Services Officers Co-operative Society Ltd. 12. The petitioner, who was going to be a partner in the venture, has every right to know about the exact position and the nature of right over the Sanga granite mines which ultimately found to be non-existent. They cannot be said to be at fault in not coming forward for executing agreement. 13. I find substance in the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that the entire process was sham, colourable and null and void and any deposit made against such proposal of the respondents cannot be forfeited. 14. The respondents, being the instrumentality of a welfare State, is expected to act fairly and reasonably. When the lease, which was the basis of their project, was non-existent, any deposit made by the petitioner against the same cannot be forfeited. 15. Considering the above, the letter refusing refund of earnest money of the petitioner issued by Memo No.2686 dated 12.11.2007 is quashed. When the lease, which was the basis of their project, was non-existent, any deposit made by the petitioner against the same cannot be forfeited. 15. Considering the above, the letter refusing refund of earnest money of the petitioner issued by Memo No.2686 dated 12.11.2007 is quashed. The respondents are directed to refund earnest money deposited by the petitioner along with the simple interest at the bank rate within two months from the date of receipt / production of a copy of this order.