Oral Order By these three writ petitions, the petitioner has sought indulgence of this Court for a direction to the respondent-State and its authorities to proceed with petitioner's technical bid and financial bid, as submitted by him, in respect of Patna, Banka and Arwal. The three writ petitions are in relation to each of these three places. The bids were called by the State for settlement of mining rights of sand from the river beds. 2. Heard Mr. S.D. Sanjay, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner in all the three writ petitions and Mr. D.K. Sinha, learned Senior Counsel for the Department of Mines, Government of Bihar and with their consent these writ petitions are being disposed of at this stage itself. 3. For settlement of sand mining rights from the river beds (Balu Ghat Settlement) State in the Department of Mines and Geology issued notice inviting tenders. The tenders had to be submitted in two parts. Part-A was technical bid and Part-B was to be financial bid. In the technical bid, i.e., Part-A, apart from other documents, the tenderers were required to submit a bank draft of 10% of the value of the bid amount as earnest money. They also had to submit a certificate from the bank certifying that the said bank draft was prepared from the money available in the account of the tenderers. As per the tender notice, which was common for all places, last date for submission was 18.12.2013. On that day Part-A of the tender documents in one envelop marked A and Part-B document in envelop marked B had to be filed, both enclosed in a third envelop marked C. Envelop marked C was then to be opened on 19.12.2013 from which envelop A, i.e., Part-A technical bid was to be then opened for scrutiny. Thereafter, on 20.12.2013 the financial bid contained in envelop B pertaining to Part-B of the tender had to be opened. In the NIT dated 5.12.2013, which is Annexure-1 to the writ petition, the procedure for filing tender is contained in Clause-5 of sub-clause (5), which reads as follows :– ^^¼5½ mi;qZDr fyQkQksa ls fHkUu vyx ls fn;s fdlh dkxtkr ij dksbZ fopkj ugha fd;k tk;sxkA^^ 4. The problem that beset the petitioner in respect of three places for which he had applied, i.e., Patna, Banka and Arwal is common. The problem that beset the petitioner in respect of three places for which he had applied, i.e., Patna, Banka and Arwal is common. As noted above, envelop A has to contain Part-A documents, i.e., the technical bid document. Petitioner had got prepared the bank drafts as was required. They being of Rs. 8.80 crores in respect of Patna, Rs. 61 lakhs in respect of Arwal and Rs. 9.49 lakhs in respect of Banka in favour of the District Mining Officer of the respective districts, as required by the NIT. In respect of each of these three drafts he had got certificate from the bank giving particulars of the bank draft amount and the certificate that it was prepared out of money standing in the account of the tenderer. While sealing the envelops due to clerical mistake the certificate from the bank was enclosed with the technical bid which clearly show the amount of draft and other particulars. Thinking that so far as money is concerned that would be concerned in the financial bid, which is Part-B of the tender, the draft was enclosed alongwith Part-B documents in envelop B. Thus, envelop A would disclose the amount of draft, the certificate of the bank and the particulars of the draft, whereas the draft was enclosed in envelop B. Accordingly, when the technical bids were opened on 19.12.2013 for Patna and Banka the earnest money draft not having been found in envelop A, though the bank certificate was found, petitioner's technical bid in respect of Patna and Banka stood rejected. So far as Arwal is concerned, the technical bid had not been opened on the scheduled day. 5. On 20.12.2013, the date fixed for opening the financial bid, in another writ petition filed by someone else, this Court granted stay of the entire NIT issued by the State, being order dated 20.12.2013 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 25245 of 2013 (Hemant Kumar Chaudhary vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.). The stay, apparently was because before issuing NIT environmental clearance and other requisite permission were required. The State had not got requisite permission as directed by the Apex Court in the case of Deepak Kumar VS. State of Haryana since reported in (2012)4 Supreme Court Cases 629, thus the entire tender process came to stand still in the State. 6. The stay, apparently was because before issuing NIT environmental clearance and other requisite permission were required. The State had not got requisite permission as directed by the Apex Court in the case of Deepak Kumar VS. State of Haryana since reported in (2012)4 Supreme Court Cases 629, thus the entire tender process came to stand still in the State. 6. As substantial money of the petitioner had got stuck by virtue of the stay order granted by this Court, petitioner applied to the authorities that the drafts may be returned to him because naturally so long as the drafts remain drafts or out of hand of the petitioner, petitioner was deprived of its utilization in any manner. But, it appears that by order dated 16.1.2014, the interim stay granted on 20.12.2013 was vacated by this Court. Accordingly, the process restarted. Hence, petitioner filed these three writ petitions praying that as he had filed the certificate as required in envelop A, but under a bona fide impression that earnest money draft was required as part of financial bid, the draft was enclosed in envelop B pertaining to Part-B, though both the envelops were filed in one single envelop as required marked envelop C. There was a technical breach but that was of no consequence. Both the documents were in envelops with the Government within the due date. 7. On behalf of petitioner, it is prayed that State instead of rejecting the technical bid, which had full particulars of the draft, should consider his financial bid only if the draft is found in envelop B. In case, the draft is not found in envelop Band details are not found in envelop A then his bid may be rejected. To this, on behalf of the State, it is submitted that it is not known as to what has happened to the request of petitioner to refund the earnest money. It is then submitted that in view of sub-clause (5) of Clause 5 of the NIT any document other than documents which are found in envelops cannot be considered. That being so, the draft not being in envelop A and being in envelop B could not be considered. These are the rival contentions. 8. Having considered the arguments, in my view, the technically the stand of the State is correct but that is hyper-technicality. That being so, the draft not being in envelop A and being in envelop B could not be considered. These are the rival contentions. 8. Having considered the arguments, in my view, the technically the stand of the State is correct but that is hyper-technicality. I say so because the petitioner asserts that both the certificates and the drafts are in envelop A and envelop B, respectively and both the envelops are already with the authorities in a sealed envelope C. Envelop A contains the full particulars of the drafts including the amount and other details. If this certificate is contained in envelop A and the draft is found in envelop B then, in my view, this would hyper-technicality to disqualify the petitioner. Petitioner would not be violating Clause 5(5) of the NIT inasmuch as he would not, be supplying any document which is not already in the envelops. Only those documents which are recovered from the envelop would have to be considered. Petitioner's explanation is bona fide inasmuch as it is only after the technical, bids that financial bids are taken up. Financial bids as per understanding of the petitioner which is a bona fide mistake is the bid in which draft had to be submitted. It is a bona fide mistake and for that, in my view, petitioner cannot be disqualified. In this connection, I can usefully refer to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Mangalore Chemicals & Fertilisers Ltd. vs. Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes and Others since reported in AIR 1992 Supreme Court 152 wherein what has been said by the Apex Court, which is quoted hereunder :– ".....The answer to this is in the words of Lord Denning: 'Now I know that a public authority cannot be estopped from doing its public duty, but I do think it can be estopped from relying on a technicality and this is a technicality' [see Wells vs. Minister of Housing and Local Government, (1967)1 WLR 1000 at p. 1007]. Francis Bennion in his 'Statutory Interpretation' 1984 edition, says at page 683 : Unnecessary technicality: Modern courts seek to cut down technicalities attendant upon a statutory procedure where these cannot be shown to be necessary to the fulfillment of the purposes of the legislation." 9. Francis Bennion in his 'Statutory Interpretation' 1984 edition, says at page 683 : Unnecessary technicality: Modern courts seek to cut down technicalities attendant upon a statutory procedure where these cannot be shown to be necessary to the fulfillment of the purposes of the legislation." 9. Thus seen, if the earnest money of the petitioner has not yet been returned as requested by him and if the certificate from the bank with all particulars and the matching draft are found in the envelops A & B already submitted within due time, I do not think the petitioner should be disqualified. Looking from another angle by ignoring this technical breach what is the consequence. So far as the State is concerned, it would only encourage greater competition which gets more money/revenue to the State, both of which are advisable course of action rather than stiffling competition. 10. Thus, having considered the matter, in my view, the writ petition must succeed. The State is directed to proceed accordingly with the tenders filed by the petitioner. But, if the either of the documents referred to have, are not found in either of the two envelops, as noted above, the bid documents of the petitioner has to be rejected outright. 11. Learned Senior Counsel for the Department of Mines and Geology, Government of Bihar, Mr. D.K. Sinha would inform the Department accordingly. 12. With these observations and directions, these three writ petitions are disposed of.