JUDGMENT & ORDER : Heard Mr. D. Saikia, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. R.B. Bora, learned standing counsel, Forest Department, appearing for all the respondents. 2. A sale notice dated 05.11.2013 was issued by the Divisional Forest Officer, Sonitpur East Division, Biswanath Chariali under the provisions of Rules 32(1) and 33(1) of the Assam Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2013 (for short, “Rules”) for grant of mining contract for collection of boulder, gravel, ordinary sand, ordinary earth, ordinary clay from Buroi Sand Gravel Mahal No.2 for a period of 7(seven) years from the date of settlement for stipulated quantity of 70,000 Cubic Mtrs of sand and 56,000 Cubic Mtrs of gravel. 3. The petitioner responded to the said notice and the entire controversy has arisen with regard to the bid amount/tender amount quoted by the petitioner. 4. The stand of the petitioner in the writ petition and during the course of argument is that the petitioner had submitted his tender for an amount of Rs.2,55,55,555/- for a period of 7(seven) years and, therefore, the yearly bid amount would be Rs.36,50,793/-. On the other hand, the amount of Rs.2,55,55,555/- was taken to be the annual bid amount of the writ petitioner and taking the same as aforesaid, he was treated to be the highest tenderer and accordingly, Letter of Intent (LOI) was issued on 12.02.2014 granting mining permit to him. 5. On 04.08.2014, a letter was issued by the Divisional Forest Officer, Sonitpur East Division to the petitioner requiring him, amongst others, to make initial bid security for an amount equal to 10% of the annual bid amount under the provisions of Rule 37(3)(i) within 10(ten) days in the form of Bank Draft drawn in a Nationalized Bank. The petitioner responded to the said letter dated 04.08.2014 by his letter dated 13.08.2014 contending that 10% of his annual bid amounts to Rs.36,50,793/- and, therefore, he was required to deposit only that amount and accordingly, prayed for permission to deposit the said amount specifically contending that the amount of Rs.2,55,55,555/- was for a period of 7(seven) years. The petitioner responded to the said letter dated 04.08.2014 by his letter dated 13.08.2014 contending that 10% of his annual bid amounts to Rs.36,50,793/- and, therefore, he was required to deposit only that amount and accordingly, prayed for permission to deposit the said amount specifically contending that the amount of Rs.2,55,55,555/- was for a period of 7(seven) years. Thereafter, by a letter dated 21.10.2014, the Divisional Forest Officer passed an order forfeiting the earnest money deposited by the petitioner due to non-implementation of the LOI and also barring him from participating in any future tender process for a period of 7(seven) years and adjusting the earnest money as Government revenue in terms of the tender notice dated 27.08.2013. 6. Letter dated 06.01.2014 (Annexure: B of the writ petition) goes to show that the Divisional Forest Officer recommended settlement of the contract area in question with the highest bidder and in such letter, he had given a chart indicating the bids offered by the tenderers. In one part of the said letter, the mining contract was referred to as Buroi Sand Gravel Mahal No.2 and in another part of the said letter, it was referred to as Hatinga Sand Gravel, Boulder Mahal but that will not make much difference as the petitioner’s tender was for Buroi Sand Gravel Mahal No.2. Against the amount given by the petitioner in the remarks column, it was noted as bid offered for 7(seven) years. In respect of serial No.2, Pranjal Saikia, there was no remarks and he had submitted bid for Rs.1,00,00,101/. It was not indicated in the said letter who was the highest tenderer. 7. Ms. Bora has produced a photocopy of tender forms submitted by the tenderers. The petitioner filled up Clause-5 of the said tender form in the following manner - “5. Outright price being Annual Contract Money offered against the stipulated quantity of Minor Minerals specified annually as per the Schedule-A for the specific mahal is – Rs.2,55,55,555/- (For Seven Years).” 8. From the aforesaid tender form, it is explicit that the tenderers were required to quote the outright price of annual contract money offered. The petitioner had quantified the amount with a clarification in bracket indicating that the amount quoted is for 7(seven) years. From the aforesaid tender form, it is explicit that the tenderers were required to quote the outright price of annual contract money offered. The petitioner had quantified the amount with a clarification in bracket indicating that the amount quoted is for 7(seven) years. When the petitioner had specifically indicated that the amount quoted is for 7(seven) years, the respondent authorities could not have taken the said amount to be the annual contract money offered. Such quoting of the price may not have been in consonance with the stipulation of the tender form and at best, petitioner’s tender could have been rejected but only because Clause-5 required the tenderer to quote in terms of annual contract money offered, could not have justified the authorities in treating the amount quoted as annual contract money. May be, the authorities had overlooked the 7(seven) years part in the tender form and based on such erroneous understanding, treated the tender of the petitioner to be the highest valid tender and accordingly, proceeded to grant mining contract to the petitioner treating 7(seven) years bid to be the bid for 1(one) year. In the affidavit also, the respondents had treated the said amount as annual contract money offered. If the bid of the petitioner was Rs.36,50,793/-, certainly the petitioner would not have emerged as the highest tenderer and, may be, he would not have been entitled to settlement of the contract area. 9. The writ petition is structured with a prayer for a direction to the respondent authorities to accept his bid amount as Rs.36,50,793/- as annual contract money and consequently to issue a direction to the respondent authorities to accept 10% on the basis thereof. 10. The petitioner has not challenged, as such, the order dated 21.10.2014. This Court in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is a Court of equity and technicalities may not come into the way in moulding relief, if the facts as demonstrated, persuade the Court to take a view that a citizen is wronged by the actions of the State. 11. The entire premise of the order dated 21.10.2014 rests on the assumption that bid of Rs.2,55,55,555/- is annual contract money, which, in fact, is not. Viewed in that perspective, the petitioner may be justified in seeking a writ of mandamus to command the respondents to accept 10% of Rs.36,50,793/-. 11. The entire premise of the order dated 21.10.2014 rests on the assumption that bid of Rs.2,55,55,555/- is annual contract money, which, in fact, is not. Viewed in that perspective, the petitioner may be justified in seeking a writ of mandamus to command the respondents to accept 10% of Rs.36,50,793/-. There is no denial of the fact that the petitioner is also willing to deposit 10% of Rs.36,50,793/-. 12. The aforesaid factual matrix demonstrates that on a non-existing ground, the petitioner had been debarred from participating in a tender process for 7(seven) years and his earnest money is also forfeited. The petitioner has, in no manner, misled the respondent authorities or had not suppressed any material fact and, therefore, it will be wholly inequitable to allow the order dated 21.10.2014 to stand. The fact that the petitioner has not challenged the said order specifically will not preclude the Writ Court in moulding relief. Accordingly, the order dated 21.10.2014 is set aside and quashed. 13. Before parting with the records, it will be necessary to deal with another submission of Mr. Saikia. 14. Placing reliance on the affidavit-in-reply, he has submitted that the other tenderers including Pranjal Saikia, who was otherwise the highest tenderer, had withdrawn their security deposits and, therefore, direction may be issued to the respondents to allow the respondents to accept 10% of the bid value of Rs.36,50,793/-. 15. I am unable to accept the submission of Mr. Saikia. On the facts demonstrated, the petitioner was not the highest tenderer and the petitioner was awarded the mining contract on a mistaken notion of fact considering him to be the highest tenderer. It will be wholly inequitable to permit the petitioner to run the contract area by depositing 10% of his bid value of Rs.36,50,793/- as no premium can be granted to the petitioner on account of wrongful perception of facts. 16. In that view of the matter, while setting aside the order dated 21.10.2014 issued by the Divisional Forest Officer, Sonitpur East Division, Biswanath Chariali, it is provided that the respondents will issue fresh sale notice in respect of Buroi Sand Gravel Mahal No.2. The petitioner will be refunded back the security money, earnest money, etc. within a period of 2(two) months by the respondents. 17. With the above observations and directions, the writ petition stands disposed of.