JUDGMENT Sujit Narayan Prasad, J. - It is a case where the petitioner has sought for a direction upon the respondent Nos.2 & 3 directing them to refund the amount to the tune of Rs.5,20,000/- which was deposited by the petitioner in terms of an auction notice inviting application by the respondents for settlement of sand bed, the petitioner having been declared to be successful had deposited the total amount to the tune of Rs.18,00,000/- but subsequent thereto he has not been allowed to carry out the said work on the ground that the said work is to be carried out just adjacent to the protected forest area and in consequence thereof, the Government has taken decision not to execute the said work and in view thereof, the sum of Rs.12,80,000/- has been refunded back in favour of the petitioner but the rest of the amount of Rs.5,20,000/- has not been refunded back, therefore, the instant writ petition. 2. 2. According to the petitioner, he has participated in the bid in pursuance to the notice inviting application and as such there is no fault on his part rather it is the fault committed on the part of the State authority in coming out with the notice inviting application for settling the auction for sand bed in an area situated just adjacent to the protected forest area and if the said settlement could have been allowed to be carried out since it will ultimately affect the forest and as such not permissible to carry out the said work therefore, the State authority ought to have issued the notice by taking care of all these facts but in a very mechanical manner, the notice inviting application has been made and in view thereof, the petitioner has deposited a huge amount of Rs.18,00,000/- as required during the time of participation in the bid but has not been allowed to carry out the work due to bona fide reasons but since there is fault on the part of the State authority, he cannot be allowed to suffer although the authorities have taken positive stand in the counter affidavit for refund of the amount and they have also refunded substantial amount of Rs.12,80,000/- and the rest of the amount i.e., Rs.5,20,000/- is still to be refunded but that cannot be said to be sufficient since the petitioner has been made to suffer due to no fault on his own and therefore, he is entitled to get the interest (simple interest) at the applicable bank rate. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a judgment rendered by Hon''ble Apex Court in the case of M/s Surya Constructions vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. Passed in Civil Appeal No.2610 of 2019. 3. Mr. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a judgment rendered by Hon''ble Apex Court in the case of M/s Surya Constructions vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. Passed in Civil Appeal No.2610 of 2019. 3. Mr. Rupesh Singh, learned GP-V by placing reliance upon the counter affidavit has submitted that it is due to bona fide mistake the notice inviting application was issued but when the Government has realized that the area is just adjacent to the protected forest area therefore, the decision was taken by the competent authority not to execute the said work and in consequence thereof, the amount which has been deposited by the petitioner has been decided to be refunded back in his favour and in view thereof, a sum of Rs.12,80,000/- out of Rs.18,00,000/- has been refunded to the petitioner and for rest of the amount of Rs.5,20,000/- the appropriate correspondence has been made by the District Mining Officer, East Singhbhum seeking guideline from the Director of Industry, Mining and Geological Department, Government of Jharkhand which is under consideration for taking final decision. 4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and after appreciating their rival submissions and looking to the stand taken by the parties in their affidavits, it is the admitted fact that a notice inviting application has been issued for settlement of sand bed in an area which is just adjacent to the protected forest area. The petitioner has participated in the bid and declared to be successful and as per the requirement, he deposited a sum of Rs.18,00,000/- but he has not been allowed to carry out the work on the basis of the subsequent decision taken by the competent authority for the reason that the area which has been settled is just adjacent to the protected forest area and if it would be allowed to carry out the said work it will ultimately affect the forest and therefore, the petitioner has not been allowed to carry out the work. The petitioner is also not questioning the same rather his grievance is that the amount which has been deposited by him to the tune of Rs.18,00,000/-, he is entitled to get it back along with the interest at least at the rate of simple interest because of no fault of his own rather it is the State authority who has mechanically come out with the notice inviting application without getting it verified regarding the topographical position of the area having been situated just adjacent to the protected forest area. The State respondent has admitted the claim of the petitioner, not only that, sum of Rs.12,80,000/- has been refunded in favour of the petitioner but for rest of the amount i.e., Rs.5,20,000/- along with the statutory interest, the instant writ petition has been filed. 5. So far as the claim of the refund of Rs.5,20,000/- is concerned, it is evident from the stand taken by the State authority in the counter affidavit that the same is under consideration and since it has not been disputed, therefore this Court after considering the latches committed on the part of the State authority is of the view that the petitioner for no fault of his own cannot be allowed to suffer due to mechanical decision taken by the State authority in issuing the notice inviting application for settlement of sand bed just adjacent to the protected forest. This Court is of the view that the appropriate direction is to be passed commanding upon the competent authority of the State respondent to disburse the amount of Rs.5,20,000/- in favour of the petitioner through bank draft within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of the order. So far as the relief pertaining to statutory interest is concerned, it is not in dispute that if any interest would be granted by the Court of law it will over-burden the State Exchequer but on that pretext, it depends upon the facts herein if direction pertaining to statutory interest if not passed, it will amount to injustice since there is no fault on the part of the petitioner. Considering this aspect of the matter and considering the factual aspect involved in this case, it is the considered view of this Court that the petitioner, in legitimate expectation to earn his livelihood, has deposited a sum of Rs.18,00,000/- to carry out the settlement work in pursuance to the decision taken by the authority in which he has been declared to be successful settlee and in consequence thereof, he has deposited Rs.18,00,000/- but has been deprived from carrying out the said work although for the bona fide reason but the question is that if the latches has been committed on the part of the State authority why the petitioner will be made to suffer. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment rendered by Hon''ble Apex Court in the case of M/s Surya Constructions vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. Passed in Civil Appeal No.2610 of 2019. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment rendered by Hon''ble Apex Court in the case of M/s Surya Constructions vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. Passed in Civil Appeal No.2610 of 2019. After going across the said judgment it is evident that the same has been passed in a case of contract but the Hon''ble Apex Court by taking into consideration the factual aspect involved therein pertaining to the undisputed claim by the State authority and rejecting the claim by the High Court under writ jurisdiction has been pleased to pass direction upon the authority to pay the amount along with the interest @ 6% per annum, considering the aforesaid judgment and applying the same in the facts and circumstances of the case, it is in better footing than the factual aspect involved in the said case since it is not a case where the petitioner has been allowed to carry out the work rather due to latches committed on the part of the State authority petitioner was deprived from executing the work and a huge money as deposited by the petitioner has been kept in State exchequer and it is the admitted case of the authority that there is no latches on the part of the petitioner, that is the reason they have decided to refund the entire amount and the part of it i.e., to the tune of Rs.12,80,000/- has already been refunded in favour of the petitioner and so far as the rest of the amount of Rs.5,20,000/-, it is under consideration for refunding it in favour of the petitioner, therefore, the petitioner having no fault on his part and as such he is entitled to get interest at the rate of simple interest applicable. 6. 6. It is made clear that and as has been observed herein that by granting interest, the State Exchequer would be over burdened, therefore, this Court thinks it fit and proper to direct the Secretary of the Department to conduct an inquiry and fix accountability that why and under what authority the said notice inviting application has been notified without verifying the topographical position of the area having been situated just adjacent to the protected forest area and after fixing accountability, the amount which will be paid by way of simple interest in favour of the petitioner shall be recovered from the pocket of the erring officials after holding a regular inquiry and after providing an opportunity of hearing to the concerned official/officials. 7. In view thereof, the writ petition is disposed of.