JUDGMENT : RAJESH SHANKAR, J. 1. The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order as contained in Letter No. 256/M dated 24.05.2016 (Annexure-18 to the writ petition) whereby the sand mining lease of the petitioner pertaining to ‘Amma Sand Mining Project’ (hereinafter referred to as ‘the said project’) situated at Plot Nos. 1250 and 3403 in Village-Amma, P.O. Amma Pakhna, P.S. Torpa, District-Khunti, having an area of 29.60 acres has been cancelled. Further prayer has been made for quashing the order as contained in memo No. 163 dated 13.05.2016 (Annexure-19 to the writ petition) passed by the respondent No. 5 whereby the environment clearance granted in favour of the petitioner with respect to the said project has been cancelled. The petitioner has also prayed for issuance of direction upon the respondent No. 2 to allow him to carry out excavation of sand with respect to the said project or in alternative, to immediately and forthwith refund a sum of Rs. 37,46,550/- to him which includes the security money of Rs. 7,45,800/- primarily due to the reason that the said project allotted in his favour has been cancelled on the ground that the same is situated within the distance of less than 250 meters from the forest area. 2. The factual background of the case, as stated in the writ petition, is that the respondent No. 4 vide its letter No. 203 dated 28.04.2015 notified several sand Ghats in the district of Khunti to be put on public auction for the period of three financial years commencing from 2015-16 to 2017-18 in terms with the provisions of the Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2004 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules, 2004’). One of the sand Ghats notified in the said public auction was popularly known as ‘Amma Sand Mining Project’ for which minimum bid price was invited at Rs. 74,58,000/- and 10% security deposit was required to be furnished by the bidders amounting to Rs. 7,45,800/- for participating in the said auction. The petitioner participated in the said auction by furnishing the required security deposit and he was finally declared as the highest bidder with respect to the said project. The petitioner had quoted the bid amount of Rs. 74,93,000/- i.e. the highest bid for the said sand Ghat. 7,45,800/- for participating in the said auction. The petitioner participated in the said auction by furnishing the required security deposit and he was finally declared as the highest bidder with respect to the said project. The petitioner had quoted the bid amount of Rs. 74,93,000/- i.e. the highest bid for the said sand Ghat. The petitioner was required to deposit 50% of the bid amount after adjusting the security amount already deposited by him. The aforesaid 50% of the bid amount was to be paid in the ratio of 80:20 in favour of the concerned Panchayat and the office of the respondent No. 3 respectively. Accordingly, the petitioner furnished the demand draft of Rs. 5,99,440/- in favour of the respondent No. 3 to be deposited with the Mining Department. The petitioner also deposited Rs. 23,97,760/- by way of another Bank Draft in the name of the Secretary of the concerned Gram Panchayat on 22.07.2015. Thereafter, the Letter of Intent was issued by the respondent No. 4 and the respondent No. 3 approved the mining plan of the petitioner. Accordingly, vide Memo No. 552/M dated 18.08.2015, the environment clearance was also granted by the office of the respondent No. 5 in favour of the petitioner on 01.10.2015. Pursuant to execution of the lease deed and grant of all the statutory clearances, the area of the said project was demarcated by the respondent No. 4 and the possession of the same was handed over to the petitioner on 16.11.2015. Thereafter, the petitioner commenced the work of sand excavation in the said project. However, the respondent No. 4 vide letter No. 55/M dated 29.01.2016, issued a notice to the petitioner alleging inter-alia that he contravened the provisions of Rule 54 of the Rules, 2004 and also rule 8 of the Jharkhand Mineral Dealer’s Rule, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rule, 2007’). Accordingly, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner as to why a penalty of Rs. 10,000/- be not imposed upon him. He submitted his reply before the respondent No. 4 stating inter-alia that he did not contravene the aforesaid provisions warranting levy of penalty of Rs. 10,000/-. Accordingly, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner as to why a penalty of Rs. 10,000/- be not imposed upon him. He submitted his reply before the respondent No. 4 stating inter-alia that he did not contravene the aforesaid provisions warranting levy of penalty of Rs. 10,000/-. Subsequently, the petitioner received Letter No. 109/M dated 01.03.2016 issued by the office of the respondent No. 4 intimating him that since the said project allotted in his favour is situated within the distance of less than 250 meters from the nearest forest area, the same has been suspended till further orders. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on earlier occasion, the Divisional Forest Officer, Khunti Forest Division himself had suggested that certain area of Plot No. 1250 is situated at a distance of more than 250 meters from the forest area whereas the other area of Plot Nos. 1250 and 3403 is situated at a distance of less than 250 meters from the forest area. The said report was submitted by the office of the Divisional Forest Officer, Khunti Forest Division to the respondent No. 4 as far back as on 12.10.2015 itself. In spite of the said report, the respondent No. 2 proceeded with the execution of lease deed with the petitioner especially because overall area of the petitioner which was allotted to him for the said project was situated at a distance of more than 250 meters from the forest area. The respondent No. 5 in its meeting held on 07.05.2013 had taken a decision that the environment clearance would be granted only with respect to such mining projects which are situated at a distance of not less than 250 meters from the nearest reserved/protected forest area. However, it was nowhere mentioned as to what would be the identifying point in the mining project for determining as to whether the said project is situated at a distance of not less than 250 meters from the nearest forest area. The said project was notified for public auction by the respondent No. 4 and it is really astonishing as to how the said project, which is situated within a distance of less than 250 meters from the nearest forest area, could have been notified for settlement through the public auction. The said project was notified for public auction by the respondent No. 4 and it is really astonishing as to how the said project, which is situated within a distance of less than 250 meters from the nearest forest area, could have been notified for settlement through the public auction. The respondent No. 4 issued Letter No. 173/M dated 05.04.2016 to the petitioner primarily alleging that even after suspension of the mining lease of the petitioner w.e.f. 01.03.2016, he was found excavating sand from the said mining area. A show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner as to why the said project allotted in his favour be not cancelled and he was directed to submit his reply within a period of 30 days. The petitioner submitted his reply before the respondent No. 4 on 26.04.2016 stating that he had not carried out any mining operation in the said project after the order dated 01.03.2016. However, vide letter dated 24.05.2016, the petitioner was intimated that the said project settled in his favour has been cancelled pursuant to the order dated 21.05.2016 passed by the respondent No. 2. It is further submitted that the petitioner was neither provided any opportunity of hearing nor the reply submitted by him was considered before cancelling the said mining lease. It appears that the said mining lease has been cancelled by the respondent No. 2 in purported exercise of power conferred on him under rule 22(5) of the Rules, 2004, however, bare perusal of the said rule would suggest that the same is not applicable in the case of the petitioner for cancelling his mining lease. Rule 22(5) provides that if the lease holder does not pay the requisite royalty and/or violates the rules or conditions incorporated under the mining lease, the competent authority will give 30 days’ notice to the lease holder for payment of royalty and if the said royalty is not paid within the said period, the lease granted in favour of the lease holder will be cancelled. No notice whatsoever was given to the petitioner for the alleged default in making payment of royalty. In fact, as per the terms of the auction, the petitioner has already paid the royalty in advance and hence there is no question of violation of rule 22(5) of the Rules, 2004. No notice whatsoever was given to the petitioner for the alleged default in making payment of royalty. In fact, as per the terms of the auction, the petitioner has already paid the royalty in advance and hence there is no question of violation of rule 22(5) of the Rules, 2004. On perusal of the impugned order dated 24.05.2016, it would be evident that the lease deed of the petitioner has been cancelled without any application of mind and without considering the reply submitted by him. The petitioner with a bona-fide belief that the said sand Ghat has been notified by the district authorities for public auction, had participated in the same and had made huge investment to carry out the sand excavation work. Thus, the respondent authorities cannot illegally enrich themselves with the hard earned money of the petitioner due to their own fault in identifying proper mining area to be put to public auction. It is highly arbitrary on the part of the respondents to accept the bid amount submitted by the petitioner pursuant to the public auction and subsequently to cancel the lease deed executed in his favour on the ground that the concerned mining area falls within 250 meters from the forest area. Hence, it is incumbent upon the respondents to refund the proportionate bid amount to the petitioner. 4. Per-contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the respondent No. 2 was informed by the respondent No. 5 vide its letter as contained in memo No. 163 dated 13.05.2016 that the environment clearance granted in favour of the petitioner was cancelled in view of the false affidavit sworn by him as well as in the light of letter No. 227/M dated 05.05.2016 issued by the respondent No. 4 along with the report of the Divisional Forest Officer, Khunti Forest Division as contained in memo No. 1560 dated 12.10.2015. It was reported that the said project is situated within 250 meters from the forest area whereas as per the decisions taken by the respondent No. 5, the actual distance for carrying out any sand mining activity should not be less than 250 meters from the reserved/protected forest area, which was not followed by the petitioner. It was reported that the said project is situated within 250 meters from the forest area whereas as per the decisions taken by the respondent No. 5, the actual distance for carrying out any sand mining activity should not be less than 250 meters from the reserved/protected forest area, which was not followed by the petitioner. In fact, he swore a false affidavit before the respondent No. 5 and obtained the environment clearance suppressing the aforesaid fact and as such cancellation of the mining lease of the petitioner is justified. It is further submitted that the petitioner was involved in illegal mining activities and storage of sand outside the leased area for which a fine was also imposed upon him. The Divisional Forest Officer, Khunti Forest Division submitted a report after personally verifying the site pursuant to memo No. 510 dated 06.08.2015 issued by the respondent No. 4 and thereafter submitted Letter No. 1560 dated 12.10.2015 to the respondent No. 4 stating inter-alia that as per the Forest Conservation Act, 1980, prior permission of the Central Government is required to be taken, if the land is recorded in the revenue records as Jangal-Jhari. There are serious laches and irregularities on the part of the petitioner as well as he was found indulged in illegal mining activities, which have been investigated by the Committee set up for the said purpose. The Committee made spot inspection on 29.01.2016 and found that the requirement of leaving 15 meters from the left bank of the river was not followed. Moreover, the required gap of 500 meters from the bridge was also not spared while carrying out the mining activities by the petitioner. It is further submitted that the petitioner also violated the provisions of the Rule, 2007 as any person who is engaged in storage of minerals for sale, is required to take dealer license. As such, for violation of the provisions of rule 54 of the Rules, 2004 and rule 8 of the Rule, 2007, a fine of Rs. 5,000 + Rs. 5,000 = Rs. 10,000 was imposed upon the petitioner vide letter No. 55 dated 29.01.2016. As such, for violation of the provisions of rule 54 of the Rules, 2004 and rule 8 of the Rule, 2007, a fine of Rs. 5,000 + Rs. 5,000 = Rs. 10,000 was imposed upon the petitioner vide letter No. 55 dated 29.01.2016. In view of the violation of the terms and conditions of the mining lease by the petitioner and the reports of the respondent No. 4 as well as the Divisional Forest Officer, Khunti Forest Division, the respondent No. 2 directed the respondent No. 4 to suspend the lease deed executed in favour of the petitioner vide letter No. 109/M dated 01.03.2016. Accordingly, the respondent No. 4 issued the statutory notice of 30 days to the petitioner for cancelling the mining settlement made in his favour so as to enable him to respond to the same. Since the petitioner violated the terms and conditions of the mining lease as well as the conditions of the environment clearance granted by the respondent No. 5 and he was also found guilty of suppressing the facts by swearing a false affidavit before the respondent No. 5, the impugned letters dated 24.05.2016 and 13.05.2016 issued to the petitioner are completely justified and the same require no interference of this Court. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 5 submits that the distance of the said project at many places was found less than 250 meters from the forest area as per the report of the Divisional Forest Officer, Khunti Forest Division and as such there is no illegality in cancelling the environment clearance granted to the said project of the petitioner. The petitioner himself has admitted that the distance of the said project was less than 250 meters from the nearest forest area at many places for which no mining activity could have been permitted. The petitioner himself is guilty of suppressing the true facts and not providing the correct distance of the said project from the forest area in his affidavit sworn before the respondent No. 5. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant materials available on record. Admittedly, the said mining lease was executed in favour of the petitioner in pursuance of a public auction in which on being successful, he deposited the requisite amount. Both the sides have accepted that some area of the said project falls within 250 meters from the forest area. Admittedly, the said mining lease was executed in favour of the petitioner in pursuance of a public auction in which on being successful, he deposited the requisite amount. Both the sides have accepted that some area of the said project falls within 250 meters from the forest area. Moreover, in view of the decision of the respondent No. 5 taken in its meeting dated 07.05.2013, no mining activity is permitted within 250 meters from the reserved/protected forest area. 7. In the case of Steel Authority of India Limited and Others vs. Tycoon Traders and Others, (2015) 5 SCC 767 , the fact was that the Steel Authority of India Limited advertised e-auction sale of 1 Lakh MT of iron ore (fines) from Kemmanagundi Mines and the respondent No. 1 being the successful bidder, paid Rs. 58.86 Lakh being 5% of the total sale value which was retained as security deposit and a sum of Rs. 117.74 Lakh was kept for adjustment along with the final installment. The balance payment was to be made in two monthly installments with the grace period of 30 days with interest @ 6% per annum. The application of the Steel Authority of India Limited addressed to the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests (Wildlife) and the Chief Wildlife Warden, Karnataka for renewal of permission to lift and transport iron ores (fines) through Bhadra Wildlife Sanctuary was rejected. In the said circumstances, the High Court held that the said contract itself stood frustrated and could not have been performed by the respondents even if it had desired to do so. It was also held that in case of frustrated contract, the parties must be restored to their original position. The Hon’ble Supreme Court while affirming the order of the High Court, has held as under: “7. After considering the submissions made on behalf of the parties, we find that there is substance to accept the contentions of Mr. Jain, learned Senior Counsel in the matter. In our opinion, the contract is unenforceable and further, the contract is also hit by Section 38(v) of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 as amended in 2006. Therefore, the object of the contract is forbidden by law. Hence, the said contract is unlawful and cannot be given effect to. In these circumstances, we do not accept the contention of Dr. Dhavan, appearing on behalf of the appellants. 8. Therefore, the object of the contract is forbidden by law. Hence, the said contract is unlawful and cannot be given effect to. In these circumstances, we do not accept the contention of Dr. Dhavan, appearing on behalf of the appellants. 8. Accordingly, we hold the High Court was correct in allowing the writ petition, and we do not find any reason to interfere with the said order [Tycoon Traders vs. SAIL, W.P. No. 38280 of 2011, decided on 21.2.2012 (KAR)] of the High Court. Hence, we do not find any merit in the appeal, and the same is dismissed.” 8. Further, in the case of Raj Kumar Gupta vs. State of Jharkhand and Others, W.P. (C) No. 7226 of 2017, this Court while dealing with a similar case, has held as under: “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. 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, (2011) 8 SCC 161 , it is held as under:- Unjust enrichment 151. 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, (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 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. 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. From the factual context of the preset case, it appears that after publication of the auction and issuance of the Letter of Intent in favour of the petitioner, the respondent No. 4 sought certain information from the Divisional Forest Officer, Khunti Forest Division, who in response to the same, informed vide his letter dated 12.10.2015 that the distance of Plot No. 1250 from the nearest Plot Nos. 994 and 107 of the forest area is 83 meters and distance of Plot No. 3403 form its nearest Plot No. 1567 of the forest area is 63 meters. In spite of the said information given by the Divisional Forest Officer, Khunti Forest Division, the respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 proceeded to execute the lease deed in favour of the petitioner for the said project and thus they acted in contravention of the decision of the respondent No. 5 taken in its meeting dated 07.05.2013. The petitioner was nowhere involved in selection of the place of the said project, rather the same was put to public auction by the respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4. As such, the petitioner cannot be punished for no fault on his part. A person cannot be compelled to do what he cannot possibly perform. Thus, I am of the considered view that the petitioner is entitled for refund of the proportionate amount of the bid value as well as the security amount deposited by him in relation to the said project. 10. Under the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the respondent Nos. A person cannot be compelled to do what he cannot possibly perform. Thus, I am of the considered view that the petitioner is entitled for refund of the proportionate amount of the bid value as well as the security amount deposited by him in relation to the said project. 10. Under the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 are directed to refund the proportionate bid amount as well as the security amount deposited by the petitioner in relation to the said project within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. 11. The present writ petition is accordingly disposed of with the aforesaid observation and direction.