JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Mr. Sumeet Gadodia, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Rupesh Singh, learned counsel for the respondent-State. 2. The prayer has been made in this writ petition for direction to the respondents to return the amount of royalty, which was deposited by the petitioner for the period the petitioner was not allowed to lift sand i.e. for the period between 04.06.2012 to 31.03.2014 along with the proportionate amount of registration charge and stamp duties with interest at an appropriate rate. 3. Mr. Gadodia, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad issued Notice Inviting Tender from prospective bidders to participate in auction for settlement of right for 12 mining sand beds. The right to mine was for 3 years i.e. 01.04.2011 to 31.03.2014 and the auction was to be held on 08.08.2011. He further submits that there was no requirement to take clearance or consent to operate from the Ministry of Forest and Environment, Government of India. 4. The petitioner participated and was declared successful bidder of five sand beds, namely, Tundi Block in Panchayat Kolhar, Lukaiya, Churuiya, Ukma and Mairnwatand. He further submits that the acceptance of bid of the petitioner was communicated for the aforesaid sand bids vide separate order all dated 09.08.2011. The petitioner deposited 50% of the bid amount (40% first installment and 10% of earnest money) and commenced its operation from 09.08.2011 itself and as per the terms and conditions of the agreement, the petitioner also deposited second installment of 30%. He further submits that in that view of the matter the petitioner deposited 80% of the bid amount and the balance 20% was to be deposited in the next installment. He also submits that till June 2012, transit challans were issued by the Department. However, from July 2012, the respondents stopped issuing transit challans, resulting into stoppage of mining operations of the petitioner. The said direction was issued due to direction of the Jharkhand State Pollution Control Board and also in light of the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Deepak Kumar & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Ors., reported in 2012 (4) SCC 629 . The said direction was issued due to direction of the Jharkhand State Pollution Control Board and also in light of the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Deepak Kumar & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Ors., reported in 2012 (4) SCC 629 . He further submits that the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in Deepak Kumar (supra) has been interpreted by this Court in W.P.(C) No. 5868 of 2013 and this Court has stayed the operation of such orders for obtaining environmental clearance. He further submits that this order was not applicable in the facts of the present case as the lease of the petitioner was for earlier period. At this stage, he restricts his argument only for refund of proportionate amount of bid. 5. Mr. Rupesh Singh, learned counsel for the respondent-State draws attention of this Court to paragraph 20 of the counter affidavit, wherein, it has been stated that vide letter dated 15.10.2012, the petitioner has surrendered all the five sand ghats and requested the Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad to refund the proportionate amount for the rest period. He further submits that the above letter of the petitioner has been forwarded to the Department for necessary action. He further submits that in view of paragraph 20 of the counter affidavit, this writ petition can be disposed of with direction to respondent no.1 to take a decision, in accordance with law. 6. In view of the above facts and considering the prayer restricted by the petitioner with regard to refund of proportionate amount of bid and also considering paragraph 20 of the counter affidavit, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to make a fresh representation before respondent no.1, in light of paragraph 20 of the counter affidavit, within a period of four weeks. If such representation is filed by the petitioner within the aforesaid period, respondent no.1 will take a final call on the representation of the petitioner within a period of eight weeks thereafter. If respondent no.1 comes to a finding that the petitioner is entitled for refund, necessary benefit will be extended to the petitioner within a period of six weeks thereafter. 7. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of. 8. In consequence thereof, I.A. No. 8781 of 2013 and I.A. No. 2892 of 2015 also stand disposed of.