JUDGMENT : 1. This is an appeal under Clause 10 of the Letter Patent directed against the order/judgment dated 23.04.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(C) No.2735 of 2017 whereby and whereunder the claim of the writ petitioner for refund of security deposit and the advance amount with respect to the sand bed situated at Anchal Patratu Panchayat Chordhara, Balughat has been directed to be considered in accordance with law by remitting the matter before the Deputy Commissioner. The State of Jharkhand being aggrieved with the aforesaid order has preferred the instant appeal on the ground that the learned Single Judge has committed gross error in passing the order by giving a finding to the effect that there was no fault on the part of the writ petitioner in the entire process and as such there cannot be any reason to forfeit or withhold the security deposit while on the other hand, the matter has been remitted before the Deputy Commissioner to consider the case of the writ petitioner with an observation that if it is found that for no fault of the writ petitioner is there and only because of non-grant of environmental clearance the writ petitioner could not work over the said sand ghat, the amount of security deposit should be refunded. According to the appellant-State of Jharkhand the learned Single Judge on the one hand has given a finding to the effect that there is no fault on the part of the writ petitioner while on the other hand the matter has been remitted before the Deputy Commissioner to adjudicate as to whether the fault lies on the part of the writ petitioner or not and if there is no fault lying on the part of the writ petitioner the security amount is to be refunded and as such, according to the appellant there is clear cut contradiction in the impugned order hence, the same is not sustainable in the eye of law. 2. 2. The brief facts of the case which require to be enumerated read as hereunder: The office of the Deputy Commissioner, Ramgarh has issued an auction notice in terms of the provision of Rule 12 of the Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2004 for settlement of 17 sand ghats in the district of Ramgarh which includes the sand ghat situated at Patratu Anchal, Chordhara Panchayat, Chordhara Sand ghat being Khata No.26, Plot No.20, Rakba totaling to 18.90 acres, measuring 4.00 acres. The settlement of the sand ghat in question was to be for a period of three financial years commencing from 2015-16 to 2017-18. The writ petitioner on making application was found to be eligible in the process of auction held on 20.05.2015, in consequence thereof, the letter of intent was issued in his favour by the Deputy Commissioner, Ramgarh duly been counter signed by the District Mining Office, Ramgarh as contained in letter No.855 dated 11.06.2015. The aforesaid letter of intent was followed by an agreement. The writ petitioner has obtained environmental clearance from the State Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority, in short SEIAA, on 01.10.2015. Thereafter, the inspection of the site was conducted by the Divisional Forest Officer who has submitted a report stating therein that the proposed sand ghat is falling under the notified area of forest and the proposed ghat is at the distance of 0 k.m. from the forest area. The competent authority of the State respondent, relying upon the report of the Divisional Forest Officer, cancelled the allotment of the sand ghat basing upon the condition of environmental clearance letter where it has been stated that if the sand ghat is falling under the forest area, settlement of the sand ghat shall be deemed to be cancelled. The writ petitioner, in consequence thereof, made a request for refund of his deposited amount by filing repeated representation but having not been given heed, a writ petition has been filed before this Court invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India wherein a direction has been passed by remitting the matter before the Deputy Commissioner to pass an order in accordance with law and if it is found that there is no fault on the part of the writ petitioner the amount of security will be refunded. 3. Mr. 3. Mr. Piyush Chitresh, learned AC to learned Advocate General has submitted while pressing the instant appeal that there is conflict in the order since the learned Single Judge although has remitted the matter before the Deputy Commissioner for passing an order in accordance with law but in the last but one paragraph the learned Single Judge has recorded the finding holding therein that there is no fault on the part of the writ petitioner as such according to him when there is a finding recorded to the effect that there is no latches on the part of the writ petitioner, remitting the matter before the Deputy Commissioner for taking decision in accordance with law will be meaningless and therefore, is not sustainable in the eye of law. 4. A counter affidavit was filed before the writ Court by the Principal Secretary, SEIAA inter alia it was stated that the settlement of the sand ghat was in violation of EIA Notification 2006, Environment Protection Act, 1986 and a direction passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Deepak Kumar. It is evident from the stand that the Environment Clearance to the aforesaid project had been given on the basis of an affidavit giving a declaration to the effect that the distance between sand mining project and forest is 250 meters and if the statement made in the affidavit is found to be false and misleading the issued environment clearance certificate shall be liable for cancellation. It has further been stated that when the site was physically verified by the Divisional Forest Officer, Ramgarh based upon the same a report was submitted on 14.12.2015 showing the distance of sand mine project in question from the forest area as zero and the sand mining project is adjacent to forest land and hence, environment clearance has been treated to be cancelled. 5. The contention is raised by the learned counsel for the appellant as also Mr. 5. The contention is raised by the learned counsel for the appellant as also Mr. Bhanu Kumar, learned counsel for the SEIAA that the writ petitioner is not entitled to get any refund since there is misrepresentation on his part by giving a declaration through an affidavit showing the distance of sand ghat from forest area of about 250 meters but actually there was no distance rather the sand ghat is just adjacent to the forest land and, in a situation of misrepresentation, if the allotment of sand ghat project has been made on the basis of the environment clearance certificate based upon the wrong affidavit, the settlee, i.e., the writ petitioner herein, cannot be held entitled to get any refund of the security amount. 6. Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel has put his appearance on behalf of the writ petitioner and has submitted that the writ Court has not passed any conclusive direction rather the matter has been remitted before the Deputy Commissioner and whatever plea is being taken by the appellant/respondent-SEIAA herein, the same can well be agitated before the Deputy Commissioner who can consider it. However, with respect to the contention of the State as also SEIAA pertaining to the finding recorded in the impugned order to the effect, “I find that there was no fault on the part of the petitioner in this entire process. Since the petitioner was not at fault there cannot be any reason to forfeit or withholding the security deposit”, that the said part of the order is in conflict with the remand order as the Deputy Commissioner has been directed to consider with respect to the fault if committed or not committed by the writ petitioner and as such that part of the order may be deleted by modifying the impugned order. 7. On this, learned counsel for the State as also SEIAA have submitted that the writ petitioner may be directed to bring entire facts, i.e., the copy of the writ petition, counter affidavits filed on behalf of the respondent for proper consideration of the issues before passing appropriate order as also they may be given an opportunity to present their cases. 8. Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel for the writ petitioner has raised no objection in this regard rather he has fairly submitted that appropriate order may be passed. 9. 8. Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel for the writ petitioner has raised no objection in this regard rather he has fairly submitted that appropriate order may be passed. 9. This Court, after having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the submissions advanced on their behalf, has found substance in the argument advanced on behalf of the learned counsel for the appellant to the effect that when the writ petition has been disposed of by remitting the matter before the Deputy Commissioner for consideration of the case of the writ petitioner to come to a conclusive finding as to whether fault lies on the part of the writ petitioner or not and if fault does not lie on the part of the writ petitioner the security amount would be required to be refunded, the learned Single Judge should not have given a conclusive finding by recording that there was no fault on the part of the writ petitioner in the entire process and as such in that circumstances there is no reason to forfeit or withhold the security amount which according to us is in conflict with each other. 10. In the result, the part of the order whereby and whereunder the Deputy Commissioner has been directed to consider the case of the writ petitioner by coming to a conclusive finding as to whether fault lies on the part of the writ petitioner or not, is reiterated with a direction upon the Deputy Commissioner to consider the case of the writ petitioner and come to a finding after going through various materials available on record and filed before the writ Court on its own merit and in accordance with law and if it is found that there was no fault on the part of the writ petitioner then appropriate order shall be passed by the Deputy Commissioner for refund of the security amount. 11. The aforesaid exercise shall be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of the order. 12. It is further directed that the writ petitioner will bring on record before the Deputy Commissioner the pleading of the writ petition, which shall be filed within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order. 13. 12. It is further directed that the writ petitioner will bring on record before the Deputy Commissioner the pleading of the writ petition, which shall be filed within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order. 13. It is further directed to the Deputy Commissioner to provide an opportunity of hearing to the competent authority of the State of Jharkhand as also the representative of the SEIAA/the authority who has issued environment clearance certificate, the competent forest officials as well as the writ petitioner. 14. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the appeal stands disposed of. 15. Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.