JUDGMENT : DEVASHIS BARUAH, J. Heard Mr. P. K. R. Choudhury, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. R. R. Gogoi, the learned counsel who appears on behalf of the respondent Nos.1, 2 & 3. 2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the communication dated 05.12.2018 whereby the petitioner was directed to deposit 15% of the bid security amount of Rs.6,15,008/- to make up 25% of the bid security and further it was mentioned therein that why action should not be taken against the petitioner in terms with Rule 37 (v) of the Assam Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2013 (for short, ‘the Rules of 2013’). 3. The case of the petitioner herein is that a public notice was invited for grant of a mining contract in respect of the mining area, namely, Doboka Ordinary Sand Mining No.1 (outside RF) for a period of 7 years for annual quantity of 4000 cum of sand. The petitioner participated in the said tender process. The petitioner was informed by a communication dated 07.01.2014 referring it to be a provisional Letter of Intent informing the petitioner that the Doboka Ordinary Sand Mining No.1 (outside RF) was decided to be settled with the petitioner for a period of 7 years at the offered annual price of Rs.41,00,050/- subject to following certain conditions. 4. The conditions mentioned therein which were required to be followed as per the said communication dated 07.01.2014 were that the petitioner had to deposit the initial bid security which is an amount equal to 10% of the annual contract money as per Rule 37(3)(i) of the Rules of 2013 within 7 days in the form of bank draft drawn in a nationalized bank. The petitioner was further required to deposit an additional amount equal to one month's annual contract money in the year in the form of bank draft drawn in a nationalized bank. The petitioner was further asked to deposit an additional amount equal to 10% of the annual contract money with installments towards the Mining and Mineral Development, Restoration and Rehabilitation Fund within 7 days etc. In addition to that, the communication contained further terms and conditions, however taking into consideration the present, the same being not relevant are not referred to herein. 5. In addition to that, the communication contained further terms and conditions, however taking into consideration the present, the same being not relevant are not referred to herein. 5. It is pertinent to take note of that pursuant to the issuance of the communication dated 07.01.2014, the petitioner deposited an amount of Rs.11,61,680/- which is the 10% initial bid security; one month annual contract money and 10% additional amount. Thereupon, steps were duly taken for obtaining the environmental clearance as well as for obtaining the mining plan by the petitioner. 6. In the meantime, a writ petition was filed challenging the decision to award the contract to the petitioner on the ground that the area where the mining activity was to be carried out was affecting various villages. The said writ petition was registered and numbered as WP(C) No.3863/2014, and this Court, vide an order dated 13.08.2014 while issuing notice directed that status-quo be maintained in respect to the operation of the Doboka Ordinary Sand Mining No.1 until the next date. The interim order thereupon continued and it was only on 11.08.2018 that the writ petition being WP(C) No.3863/2014 was dismissed. 7. The petitioner was duly informed about the dismissal of the writ petition by the respondent No.3 by a communication dated 30.06.2018. The petitioner submitted a communication on 20.08.2018 to the respondent No.3 stating inter-alia that he is no longer interested in the said mining area on account of he and his son being ailing and the petitioner facing extreme financial loss in the business. The petitioner also sought for release of the said amounts which he had paid, (the details of which have been referred to herein above). 8. The respondent authorities instead of considering the case of the petitioner, issued the impugned communication dated 05.12.2018 whereby the petitioner was directed to deposit a further amount of Rs.615,008/- to make up the deficit 15% of bid security and further threatened the petitioner as to why action should not be taken in terms with Rule 37(3)(v) of the Rules of 2013, on his failure to deposit the said amount of Rs.6,15,008/-. 9. The petitioner being aggrieved by the impugned communication dated 05.12.2018 had approached this Court by filing the present writ petition. 10. 9. The petitioner being aggrieved by the impugned communication dated 05.12.2018 had approached this Court by filing the present writ petition. 10. It is noticed that this Court by an order dated 15.11.2019 had issued notice, and as an interim measure, provided that no action for forfeiture of the amount already deposited by the petitioner pursuant to mining permit in question shall be initiated without the leave of the Court. 11. The record reveals that the respondent No.3 had filed an affidavit-in-opposition wherein the specific stand taken is that the petitioner was granted the Letter of Intent on 07.01.2014 for the mining area and as per Rule 37 (2) of the Rules of 2013, the highest bidder shall be required to deposit an amount equal to 25% of the annual dead rent/contract money as the security along with an additional amount equal to one month's dead rent/contract money in advance. It was further mentioned that as only 10% of the initial bid security amount was deposited, therefore vide the impugned communication dated 05.12.2018, the petitioner was asked to deposit the remaining 15%. It was further mentioned that in terms with Rule 37(3)(v) of the Rules of 2013, if the Letter of Intent holder failed to deposit the balance 15% of the security or fails to execute the contract agreement, the same shall be deemed to have been revoked and the initial 10% bid shall stand forfeited. CONTENTIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PARTIES 12. Mr. P.K.R. Choudhury, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the petitioner herein was never issued the Letter of Intent in as much as it is only after the deposit of 10% of the initial bid security, the question of issuance of the Letter of Intent arises. The learned counsel for the petitioner drawing the attention to Sub-Clauses (i) & (ii) of Rule 37(3) of the Rules of 2013 submitted that a perusal of the said Sub-Clauses would clearly show that after deciding who is entitled to be settled with the tender, the bidder in question is required to be informed and an obligation is cast upon the bidder to deposit 10% of the initial bid security. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that after the deposit of the 10%, the respondent authorities being satisfied would issue the Letter of Intent. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that after the deposit of the 10%, the respondent authorities being satisfied would issue the Letter of Intent. Referring to Clause (iii) of Rule 37(3) of the Rules of 2013, the learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the question of payment of the remaining 15% of the annual bid security amount would only arise when there is an issuance of the Letter of Intent. He, therefore, submitted that the impugned communication dated 05.12.2018 by which the respondent No.3 had directed the petitioner to deposit the remaining 50% could not have been issued without a Letter of Intent being issued prior thereto. 13. Per contra, Mr. R. R. Gogoi, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submitted that from the contents of the affidavit, it appears that the Letter of Intent was issued on 07.1.2014, and therefore, the petitioner is bound to pay the amount of 15% in terms with Clause (iii) of Rule 37(3) of the Rules of 2013 and failing which Clause (v) of Rule 37(3) of the Rules of 2013 would be squarely applicable. COURT’S QUERY 14. This Court while hearing the instant proceedings on 22.07.2025 enquired with Mr. R. R. Gogoi, the learned Counsel Standing appearing on behalf of the respondents as to whether the Sand Mahal has been put to sale subsequent to the communication issued by the petitioner on 20.08.2018 or after the period of the completion of the settlement which falls in the year 2020. Mr. R. R. Gogoi, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submitted that on 05.11.2018, the Sand Mahal in question was allotted to the second highest bidder for a period of 7 years. ANALYSIS AND DETERMINATION 15. For the purpose of deciding the dispute, an analysis of Rule 37 of the Rules of 2013 is of pivotal importance. A perusal of Sub- Rule (2) of Rule 37 of the Rules of 2013 would show that the highest bidder would be required to deposit an amount equal to 25% of the annual dead rent/contract money as security along with additional amount equal to one month's dead rent/contract money in advance. Sub-Rule (3) of Rule 37 of the Rules of 2013 stipulates the procedure in which the said amount would be realized by the Authorities. Sub-Rule (3) of Rule 37 of the Rules of 2013 stipulates the procedure in which the said amount would be realized by the Authorities. Clauses (i), (ii), (iii), (iv) & (v) of Rule 37(3) of the Rules of 2013 being relevant are reproduced herein under:- “37(3)…. (i) On completion of the bid process i.e. the fall of the hammer or the opening of the sealed bids, as the case may be, the highest bidder shall deposit an amount equal to 10% of the annual bid amount as 'Initial Bid Security' before expiry of the period allowed. (ii) The amount deposited towards the 'initial bid security' would be adjusted as part of the Bid Security on acceptance of the bid by the competent authority and a Letter of Intent (LoI) will be issued in favour of the successful bidder. (iii) The letter of intent holder shall deposit the balance amount of Bid Security i.e. equal to 15% of the annual bid amount before expiry of the period allowed. (iv) The amount of security already deposited towards the initial bid security shall be duly adjusted to make up the twenty five percent of the bid amount towards the bid Security. (v) Wherever a LoI holder fails to deposit the balance fifteen percent amount towards security as prescribed under sub-rule (3) (iii) above, and/or fails to execute the agreement after the issue of letter of intent, the same shall be deemed to have been revoked and the ten percent amount deposited by him towards 'initial bid security' shall stand forfeited. In addition, the letter of intent holder/ defaulter shall be liable to deposit the unpaid balance of fifteen percent to make up twenty five percent of the bid amount as bid security.” 16. From the perusal of the above Clauses of the above quoted Rule 37(3) of the Rules of 2013, it would be seen that on completion of the bid process, i.e. at the fall of the hammer or the opening of the sealed bids, the highest bidder would be required to deposit an amount equal to 10% of the annual bid amount as initial bid security before the expiry of the period allowed. At this stage, this Court finds it pertinent to take note of the communication dated 07.01.2014 in as much as it is the contention of the petitioner that the said document is not the Letter of Intent, rather an intimation that the petitioner had been chosen as the highest bidder. On the other hand, the respondents, more particularly the respondent No.3, in his affidavit contends that the communication dated 07.01.2014 is the Letter of Intent. 17. The answer to the respective contentions appears at Sub- clause (ii) of Rule 37(3) of the Rules of 2013 which stipulates that the initial bid security so deposited of 10% shall be adjusted as part of the bid security on acceptance of the bid by the competent authority and a Letter of Intent would be issued in favour of the successful bidder. 18. Now coming back to the communication dated 07.01.2014, it would be seen that by the said communication, the petitioner herein was asked to deposit 10% of the initial bid security which is in terms with Rule 37(3)(i) of the Rules of 2013, and therefore, the said document under no circumstances can be said to be a Letter of Intent in as much as the Letter of Intent in terms with the Rules of 2013 can be issued only after the deposit of the initial bid security. The record further reveals that the initial bid security was submitted after the communication dated 07.01.2014 and prior to 18.01.2014. There is no record available that there was a Letter of Intent issued subsequent thereto, and in fact, it is also not the case of the respondents that there was a Letter of Intent issued after the deposit of the initial bid security. 19. This Court now finds it pertinent to take note of Sub-clause (iii) of Rule 37(3) of the Rules of 2013 which obligates only the Letter of Intent holder to deposit the balance amount of the security deposit which is equal to 15% of the annual bid amount before expiry of the period allowed. 20. In the instant case, as there was no Letter of Intent issued in favour of the petitioner, there was no requirement for the petitioner to deposit 15% of the annual bid amount in terms with Rule 37(3) (iii) of the Rules of 2013. 20. In the instant case, as there was no Letter of Intent issued in favour of the petitioner, there was no requirement for the petitioner to deposit 15% of the annual bid amount in terms with Rule 37(3) (iii) of the Rules of 2013. In that view of the matter, it is therefore the opinion of this Court that the communication dated 05.12.2018 by which the petitioner herein was directed to deposit the remaining 15% of the bid amount without issuance of a Letter of Intent is contrary to the Rules of 2013, and more particularly, to Rule 37 of the said Rules of 2013. 21. Accordingly, the instant writ petition stands disposed of by setting aside the impugned communication dated 05.12.2018. 22. Before parting with the records, this Court however finds it pertinent to take note of the submission made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner at the time of dictating the present judgment to the effect that the petitioner had requested for refund of the amount which the petitioner had duly paid pursuant to the communication dated 07.01.2014 which having not being considered, appropriate directions be issued. 23. This Court duly takes note of that there is no pleadings to that effect or even any relief sought for. Considering the above, this Court is not inclined to issue any direction in that regard. 24. Be that as it may, it shall not be a bar on part of the petitioner to file appropriate representation before the authorities concerned and the authorities concerned shall decide the said representation, if so filed, as per the parameters of law without being influenced by the observations made herein above.