JUDGMENT : 1. The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 22.06.2018 passed by the respondent no. 4 – the Deputy Commissioner, Giridih in Misc. Case No. 01/2018, whereby the claim of the petitioner for refund of the deposited amount pursuant to the letter of intent issued for settlement of sand ghat has been refused. 2. The factual background of the case as stated in the writ petition is that the respondent no. 4 issued an advertisement for settlement of different sand ghats within the district of Giridih for three financial years i.e., for 2016-17, 2017-18 and 2018-19. The petitioner applied for settlement of four sand ghats and being the highest bidder, it was issued the letter of intent. The petitioner deposited altogether Rs. 4,75,42,740/- before the respondent no. 6 – the Assistant Mining Officer, Giridih as per the terms and conditions of the letter of intent. Thereafter, the respondent no. 6 wrote a letter to the Divisional Forest Officer, East Forest Division, Giridih (hereinafter referred to as the “DFO”) asking as to whether the sand ghats fall within the forest area and if not, the distance of the sand ghats from the forest area. The said letter was replied by the DFO stating that the sand ghats in question fall within 250 meters of the forest area. The petitioner consulted its consultant namely, Crystal Consultants for getting the environmental clearance who informed that as per the guideline of the State Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA), the environmental clearance to the petitioner’s project would not be granted as the sand ghats fall within 250 meters of the forest area. The petitioner thereafter requested the respondents to refund the amount deposited by it for settlement of the sand ghats, however, no action was taken and as such, the petitioner filed a writ petition being W.P(C) No. 4605 of 2017 before this Court, which was disposed of vide order dated 01.09.2017 with a direction to the Director, Mines, Government of Jharkhand to pass reasoned order in the matter. Pursuant to the order dated 01.09.2017, the Director, Mines passed the order dated 08.01.2018 observing that the petitioner cannot be held responsible for not complying the terms and conditions of the settlement of the sand ghats and it cannot be penalised for not complying the terms and conditions of the letters of intent. Pursuant to the order dated 01.09.2017, the Director, Mines passed the order dated 08.01.2018 observing that the petitioner cannot be held responsible for not complying the terms and conditions of the settlement of the sand ghats and it cannot be penalised for not complying the terms and conditions of the letters of intent. The Director of Mines further referred the matter to the respondent no. 4 to take appropriate decision in the light of the order dated 01.09.2017 passed by this Court. The respondent no. 4, however, passed the impugned order dated 22.06.2018 rejecting the claim of the petitioner for refund of the amount deposited by it for settlement of the sand ghats by observing that the petitioner-firm did not make appropriate efforts to get the environmental clearance from the SEIAA. Hence, the present writ petition. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent no. 4 had issued the advertisement for settlement of sand ghats without verifying the fact as to whether the same fall within 250 meters of the forest area. It is further submitted that only after the auction, the respondent no. 6 wrote letter to the DFO for verifying the distance of the sand ghats from the forest and as such the amount deposited by the petitioner cannot be retained in absence of any fault on the part of the petitioner. There is a clear guideline of the SEIAA that the sand ghats cannot be settled if the distance between the forest area and sand ghats is less than 250 meters. Since the sand ghats in question fall within 250 meters of the forest area, it cannot be said that the petitioner-firm has not taken due steps for getting the environmental clearance. It is also submitted that having come to know the correct position of law, the petitioner-firm could not have made futile exercise in applying for the environmental clearance. The guidelines issued by the SEIAA is strictly in terms with the direction of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, NGT and also the guidelines of the Ministry of Environment and Forest, Government of India, which could not have been relaxed by the SEIAA. 4. The guidelines issued by the SEIAA is strictly in terms with the direction of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, NGT and also the guidelines of the Ministry of Environment and Forest, Government of India, which could not have been relaxed by the SEIAA. 4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-State submits that the petitioner-firm did not even file any application before the SEIAA for getting the environmental clearance certificate and thus it clearly violated the terms and conditions in the letters of intent. It is further submitted that even after passing of the impugned order dated 22.06.2018, the petitioner has not filed any application before the SEIAA for grant of environmental clearance and as such, it has to suffer for its default. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. Admittedly, after issuance of the letter of intent to the petitioner and receiving the amount of settlement, the respondent no. 6 himself wrote several letters to the DFO, raising query with regard to the location of the sand ghats vis-a-vis the forest area, national park, sanctuary or eco-sensitive zone. In pursuance of the said letters issued by the respondent no. 6, the DFO vide letter dated 01.04.2017 informed that three sand ghats are quite adjacent to the forest area and one is within 215 meters from the forest area. It further appears from the record that it was resolved in the meeting of the SEIAA dated 07.05.2013 that in case of sand ghats, the minimum distance from the protected/reserved forest would not be less than 250 meters. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has put reliance on the judgment of this Court passed in the case of “Raj Kumar Gupta Vs. the State of Jharkhand and Ors.” [W.P.(C) No. 7226 of 2017], wherein the claim of refund of the settlee of sand ghat was allowed in view of the fact that the concerned sand ghat was located within 500 meters of a High Level Bridge and as per the guidelines of the SEIAA, the excavation was not permissible at that place. The relevant part of the said judgment is quoted hereinbelow: 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. The relevant part of the said judgment is quoted hereinbelow: 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. Aperson 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”. 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. 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. 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 there from. 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. 7. In the present case also, in view of the specific guideline of the SEIAA, the excavation of sand was not permissible within 250 meters of the forest area. I am not convinced with the reasons assigned by the respondent no. 4 that the said guideline was not mandatory. There is no such stipulation in the guideline that in a given case the minimum distance from the forest area may be relaxed. Thus the petitioner’s contention that its applying before the SEIAA for environmental clearance would have been a futile exercise as the sand ghats were located within 250 meters of the forest area appears to be reasonable. The respondents have also not controverted the fact that the sand ghats in question are within 250 meters from the forest area. However, the respondent no. 4 while rejecting the claim of the petitioner observed that the distance of 250 meters as has been fixed by the SEIAA is not mandatory and in some cases, the environmental clearances have been granted even if the distance of the sand ghats from the forest area was found less than 250 meters. Even if it is assumed that in some cases, the environmental clearance was granted for the sand ghat situated within 250 meters of the forest area, the same cannot be a good ground for rejection of the petitioner’s application for refund. It is a settled principle of law that illegality once committed cannot be allowed to perpetuate. It is important to note that the query which was made by the respondent no. 6 from the DFO was in fact required to be made before the issuance of public notice putting the concerned sand ghats to auction. It is a settled principle of law that illegality once committed cannot be allowed to perpetuate. It is important to note that the query which was made by the respondent no. 6 from the DFO was in fact required to be made before the issuance of public notice putting the concerned sand ghats to auction. However, without any fault on the part of the petitioner, the respondent authorities have unlawfully retained its substantial money. Though in the impugned order, the respondent no. 4 has observed that the petitioner should have approached the SEIAA seeking environmental clearance for the concerned sand ghats, the said observation is completely outplaced in view of the fact that the petitioner did not have any reason to approach the SEIAA as in the meantime the respondent no. 6 himself made the aforesaid query from the DFO, East Forest Division, Giridih which ultimately led to putting the process of execution of agreement with the petitioner on hold. 8. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstance, the order dated 22.06.2018 passed by the respondent no. 4 – the Deputy Commissioner, Giridih in Misc. Case No. 01/2018 is hereby quashed and set-aside. The respondent no. 4 is directed to refund the amount received from the petitioner for the settlement of the sand ghats forthwith. 9. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.