ORDER : 1. The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order passed by the respondent no. 5 –Assistant Mining Officer, Deoghar under memo no. 1118 dated 09.09.2017, whereby the settlement lease duly executed by the Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar – the respondent no. 3 in favour of the petitioner in respect of Niktha sand ghat on Ajay River has been cancelled. Further prayer has been made for directing the respondent authorities either to settle some other sand ghat in favour of the petitioner or to refund all the investment made by the petitioner to the tune of Rs. 1,31,26,339.00 with interest @ 9% from the date of deposit of the same. 2. The factual background of the case as stated in the writ petition is that pursuant to the public auction held on 02.06.2015, the sand ghat on Ajay River in Village- Niktha of Deoghar District (hereinafter referred to as “Niktha sand ghat”) was settled in favour of the petitioner being the highest bidder and thereafter the petitioner deposited requisite amount as per the terms and conditions of the settlement. The respondent no. 5, vide letter no. 1052 dated 26.06.2015 issued the Letter of Intent (LoI) and informed the petitioner that the approval in principle has been given for the settlement of Niktha sand ghat in his favour. The petitioner was thus asked to submit the mining plan for approval and also to obtain environmental clearance certificate from the competent authority and submit the same so that the work order for lifting the sand could be issued to him. Thereafter, the respondent no. 5 under memo no. 1131 dated 03.07.2015 issued a certificate to the petitioner to the effect that there was no mining lease holder within one kilometer of Niktha sand ghat of Saatar Panchayat in Deoghar District. Subsequently, the respondent no. 5 also intimated the Member Secretary, State Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA), Jharkhand about the approval of mining plan under rule 34E of Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession (Amendment) Rule, 2014. Accordingly, the SEIAA issued environment clearance to the project of Niktha sand ghat of the petitioner subject to the conditions mentioned therein. Thereafter, the settlement agreement was executed between the Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar– the respondent no. 3 and the petitioner and the same was also registered on 18.03.2016. The petitioner started the mining operation on Niktha sand ghat. Accordingly, the SEIAA issued environment clearance to the project of Niktha sand ghat of the petitioner subject to the conditions mentioned therein. Thereafter, the settlement agreement was executed between the Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar– the respondent no. 3 and the petitioner and the same was also registered on 18.03.2016. The petitioner started the mining operation on Niktha sand ghat. Soon thereafter, the Circle Officer, Deoghar vide his letter no. 669 dated 03.05.2016 informed the respondent no. 3 that Niktha sand ghat is within 500 meters of a High Level Bridge on Ajay River, whereas extraction/lifting of sand is permissible only beyond 500 meters of the High Level Bridge on a river. Thereafter, the petitioner was not allowed to extract/lift the sand. The petitioner vide his letter dated 11.05.2016 requested the respondent no. 5 for permission to lift sand from adjacent sand ghats of Khaspeka, Deopura, etc. The respondent no. 5 sought necessary direction in the matter from the respondent no. 2 – the Director (Mines), Industry, Mines & Geology Department, Government of Jharkhand, however, no such direction was issued. Thus, the petitioner vide letter dated 11/13.01.2017 submitted his representation to the various authorities requesting therein either to permit him to lift the sand or to refund the entire investment made in the project. However, nothing was done by the respondents and thereafter, the petitioner filed a writ petition being W.P.(C) No. 696 of 2017 before this Court which was disposed of vide order dated 14.02.2017 with a direction to the competent authority/the respondent no. 3 to take a decision in the matter within a reasonable time. Pursuant to the order dated 14.02.2017, the respondent no. 5 passed the impugned order contained in memo no. 1118 dated 09.09.2017, whereby the settlement of the Niktha sand ghat in favour of the petitioner has been cancelled alleging violation of the terms and conditions of the settlement. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that due to the said action of the respondent authorities, the petitioner has suffered a huge loss without any fault on his part. It is further submitted that the respondent no. 5 has wrongly observed that the petitioner has lifted the sand from Niktha sand ghat for 30 days, rather the true fact is that he never lifted sand either from Niktha sand ghat or from any other ghat. It is further submitted that the respondent no. 5 has wrongly observed that the petitioner has lifted the sand from Niktha sand ghat for 30 days, rather the true fact is that he never lifted sand either from Niktha sand ghat or from any other ghat. It is also submitted that the action of the respondents is highly arbitrary as on the one hand, they themselves settled Niktha sand ghat in favour of the petitioner and received the requisite amount of settlement from him and on the other hand, took a decision that no lifting is permissible from the Niktha sand ghat as it is situated within 500 meter of a High Level Bridge on Ajay river. 4. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent-State submits that there were various complaints against the petitioner alleging lifting of sand from different locations other than the ghat which was allotted to him. It is further submitted that from the report of the Circle Officer, Deoghar vide letter no. 669 dated 03.05.2016, it would be evident that the settled sand ghat was within 500 meter from the High level Bridge on Ajay River. There is a clear instruction under Clause 8 of the environment clearance as well as in the sand ghat settlement agreement that no sand mining activity will be carried out in the upstream or downstream within 500 meter of railways, road, bridge, water intake, wires and notified aquarium or breeding places. However, the petitioner violated the said condition and thus the respondent no. 5 has rightly passed the impugned order cancelling the settlement of sand ghat made in favour of the petitioner. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. Admittedly, Niktha sand ghat on Ajay River was settled in favour of the petitioner on payment of the settlement amount. His mining plan was also approved and was given environment clearance from SEIAA which is the competent authority to grant the same. However, on the basis of the report of the Circle officer, Deoghar that Niktha sand ghat is located within 500 meter of a High Level Bridge constructed over Ajay River, the petitioner was restrained form lifting the sand. Both the parties have not controverted the fact that Niktha sand ghat is within 500 meter of High Level Bridge. However, on the basis of the report of the Circle officer, Deoghar that Niktha sand ghat is located within 500 meter of a High Level Bridge constructed over Ajay River, the petitioner was restrained form lifting the sand. Both the parties have not controverted the fact that Niktha sand ghat is within 500 meter of High Level Bridge. On perusal of Clause 8 of specific condition of the environment clearance as well as Clause 6 of Chapter-III of the settlement agreement, it appears that both the environment clearance and settlement agreement prohibit the sand mining activity in the upstream and downstream within 500 meter of railways, road, bridge, water intake, wires and notified aquarium or breeding places. Thus, it is not in dispute that the settlement of Niktha sand ghat was made in contravention of the provisions of the settlement agreement as well as the environment clearance. 6. In the case of “Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action Vs. Union of India & Ors.”, reported in (2011) 8 SCC 161 , it is held as under:- Unjust enrichment 151. Unjust enrichment has been defined as: “Unjust enrichment.—A benefit obtained from another, not intended as a gift and not legally justifiable, for which the beneficiary must make restitution or recompense.” See Black’s Law Dictionary, 8th Edn. (Bryan A. Garner) at p. 1573. A claim for unjust enrichment arises where there has been an “unjust retention of a benefit to the loss of another, or the retention of money or property of another against the fundamental principles of justice or equity and good conscience”. 152. “Unjust enrichment” has been defined by the court as the unjust retention of a benefit to the loss of another, or the retention of money or property of another against the fundamental principles of justice or equity and good conscience. A person is enriched if he has received a benefit, and he is unjustly enriched if retention of the benefit would be unjust. Unjust enrichment of a person occurs when he has and retains money or benefits which in justice and equity belong to another. 153. Unjust enrichment is “the unjust retention of a benefit to the loss of another, or the retention of money or property of another against the fundamental principles of justice or equity and good conscience”. Unjust enrichment of a person occurs when he has and retains money or benefits which in justice and equity belong to another. 153. Unjust enrichment is “the unjust retention of a benefit to the loss of another, or the retention of money or property of another against the fundamental principles of justice or equity and good conscience”. A defendant may be liable “even when the defendant retaining the benefit is not a wrongdoer” and “even though he may have received [it] honestly in the first instance”. (Schock v. Nash, A 2d, 232-33.) 154. Unjust enrichment occurs when the defendant wrongfully secures a benefit or passively receives a benefit which would be unconscionable to retain. In the leading case of Fibrosa Spolka Akcyjna v. Fairbairn Lawson Combe Barbour Ltd., Lord Wright stated the principle thus: (AC p. 61) “… Any civilised system of law is bound to provide remedies for cases of what has been called unjust enrichment or unjust benefit, that is to prevent a man from retaining the money of or some benefit derived from another which it is against conscience that he should keep. Such remedies in English law are generically different from remedies in contract or in tort, and are now recognised to fall within a third category of the common law which has been called quasi-contract or restitution.” 155. Lord Denning also stated in Nelson v. Larholt as under: (KB p. 343) “… It is no longer appropriate, however, to draw a distinction between law and equity. Principles have now to be stated in the light of their combined effect. Nor is it necessary to canvass the niceties of the old forms of action. Remedies now depend on the substance of the right, not on whether they can be fitted into a particular framework. The right here is not peculiar to equity or contract or tort, but falls naturally within the important category of cases where the court orders restitution, if the justice of the case so requires.” 156. The above principle has been accepted in India. This Court in several cases has applied the doctrine of unjust enrichment. 159. Unjust enrichment is basic to the subject of restitution, and is indeed approached as a fundamental principle thereof. They are usually linked together, and restitution is frequently based upon the theory of unjust enrichment. The above principle has been accepted in India. This Court in several cases has applied the doctrine of unjust enrichment. 159. Unjust enrichment is basic to the subject of restitution, and is indeed approached as a fundamental principle thereof. They are usually linked together, and restitution is frequently based upon the theory of unjust enrichment. However, although unjust enrichment is often referred to or regarded as a ground for restitution, it is perhaps more accurate to regard it as a prerequisite, for usually there can be no restitution without unjust enrichment. It is defined as the unjust retention of a benefit to the loss of another or the retention of money or property of another against the fundamental principles of justice or equity and good conscience. A person is enriched if he has received a benefit, and he is unjustly enriched if retention of the benefit would be unjust. Unjust enrichment of a person occurs when he has and retains money or benefits which in justice and equity belong to another. 7. Thus, considering the fact situation of the present case, the respondent authorities were duty bound to refund the amount which was received from the petitioner in lieu of allotment of the sand ghat, since the agreement itself was illegal in view of the stipulation made in the environment clearance and settlement agreement. It is not in dispute that the sand ghats were selected and put to public auction by the respondent authorities themselves. Thus, if subsequently it was found that the lifting of sand from a particular sand ghat is not permissible due to such stipulation in the environment clearance and settlement agreement, the settlee/lessee cannot be subjected to adverse consequences arising therefrom. The respondents have, however, contended that the petitioner has lifted sand from the said sand ghat for about one month, which the petitioner has denied. Be that as it may. This Court in the writ jurisdiction cannot decide the said disputed question of fact. 8. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstance, the respondents are directed to immediately refund the amount of settlement received from the petitioner after deducting the proportionate amount for one month during which the petitioner is alleged to have lifted the sand. 9. This Court in the writ jurisdiction cannot decide the said disputed question of fact. 8. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstance, the respondents are directed to immediately refund the amount of settlement received from the petitioner after deducting the proportionate amount for one month during which the petitioner is alleged to have lifted the sand. 9. So far as the claim of the petitioner for reimbursement of the entire cost incurred by him during settlement of Niktha sand ghat along with interest is concerned, the same cannot be adjudicated in the writ petition. The petitioner is, however, at liberty to move before the competent civil court in accordance with law for the said claim, if so advised. 10. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.