2025:JHHC:24164-DB 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No.681 of 2024 ------ M/s Mishra Wine, having its office at Dangalpara, P.O. Dumka, P.S. Dumka, District Dumka (Jharkhand) through one of its Partner Akhilesh Singh, aged about 61 years, son of Nand Kishor Singh, resident of Kurmipara, P.O. Mihijam, P.S. Mihijam, District Jamtara (Jharkhand). …. …. Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand represented through Secretary, Department of Mines and Geology, Government of Jharkhand, Yojana Bhawan, Doranda, P.O. Doranda, P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi (Jharkhand). 2. Jharkhand State Mineral Development Corporation Ltd. Represented through its Managing Director, Khanij Nigam Bhawan, Doranda, PO. Doranda, P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi (Jharkhand). 3. In-Charge, Sand, Jharkhand State Mineral Development Corporation Ltd. having its office at Khanij Nigam Bhawan, Doranda, PO. Doranda, P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi (Jharkhand). ..... .... Respondents CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR RAI ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate Mr. Ankit Vishal, Advocate For the State : Mr. Omiya Anusha, AC to AAG-IA For the JSMDC : Mr. Manoj Kumar, Standing Counsel Mr. Aditya Raman, AC to S.C. ------ 13/Dated: 19.08.2025 1. Reference may be made to the order dated 18th August, 2025, whereby and whereunder, the following order has been passed: - “1. The present writ petition has been filed on behalf of the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying therein the following relief(s): (i) “For issuance of appropriate writ(s)/order(s)/direction(s) for quashing/ setting aside letter No. 46 dated 04.01.2024 (Annexure-9), by which the decision has been communicated to the petitioner that the EMD amount submitted by the petitioner during the empanelment 2025:JHHC:24164-DB 2 process has been forfeited in accordance with Clause 8.2.c of the Tender document i.e.;, non-submission of Performance Security and further the empanelment of the petitioner has been suspended, as being wholly illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. (ii) Further appropriate writ/order/direction, including writ of Mandamus, directing the Respondents to forthwith refund amount of Rs. 7,50,000/- deposited by the petitioner in terms of letter No. 46 dated 04.01.2024 in order to save itself from being permanently remove from the list of empanelled MDO along with 17% interest. (iii) Further appropriate writ/order/direction, including Writ of Mandamus, directing the Respondents to restore the LOI in view of the fact that the earlier LOI was never communicated to the petitioner. (iv) Further appropriate writ/order/direction, including Writ of Mandamus, directing the Respondents to calculate the Additional Security and Performance Security strictly in accordance with Sustainable Sand Mining Management Guidelines, 2016.” 2. During course of arguments the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that in view of a new policy for allotment of sand based upon the auction by virtue of Jharkhand Sand Mining Rules, 2025, he is not pressing the prayer No.1 to the writ petition rather prayer No.2 is being pressed which pertains to refund of the amount of Rs.7,50,000/- deposited by the petitioner in terms of letter No. 46 dated 04.01.2024 along with interest. 3. The ground taken by the writ petitioner that earnest money as per the condition stipulated in the tender document has been deposited by the petitioner. The petitioner has been declared to be a successful bidder and was waiting for the LOI but no LOI has been served to the petitioner so as to enable him to deposit the performance security and additional security, if applicable. The specific statement has been made in paragraph no.16 to the writ petition. The petitioner, therefore, has made out a case that without any laches lies on the part of the writ petitioner, the EMD amount deposited by him to the 2025:JHHC:24164-DB 3 tune of Rs. 7,50,000/- has been forfeited. 4. It has also been contended by referring to paragraph no. 16 to the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 sworn by one Mr. Karun Kumar Chandan, Sand In-charge that there is no denial of the specific statement made at paragraph no. 16 to the writ petition regarding non- serving of the copy of LOI. 5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of JSMDC, however, has admitted the fact that there is no specific denial to the statement made at paragraph no.16 to the writ petition regarding non supply of copy of LOI but by referring to the document as available in page no. 109 has tried to impress upon the Court that copy of the LOI has been supplied to the petitioner. 6. The same has seriously been refuted by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner by making submission that the said letter as available at Annexure-8 to the writ petition speaks about the reminder and nothing more. 7. In the aforesaid facts, this Court deems it fit to call upon the original records. 8. Let this matter be posted tomorrow, i.e., 19th August, 2025. 9. The Managing Director, Jharkhand State Mineral Development Corporation Limited shall appear before this Court tomorrow to assist this Court.” 2. Mr. Rahul Sinha, the Managing Director, JSMDC is present along with the original record. He has stated that no laches has been said to be committed by the respondent-JSMDC. 3. However, learned counsel for the writ petitioner has submitted that the Managing Director, since, is here and as such, liberty may be given to the writ petitioner to approach to him by giving all details for consideration of the issue. 4. The Managing Director, JSMDC has not made any opposition to the same. 5. Accordingly and without entering into the issue on merit, the 2025:JHHC:24164-DB 4 instant writ petition is being disposed of by giving liberty to the writ petitioner to approach before the Managing Director, JSMDC, by giving all details within two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 6. The Managing Director, JSMDC, in turn, will take decision in accordance with law within the period of three weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order. 7. In view thereof, the instant writ petition stands disposed of. 8. In consequence thereof, I.A. No.12076 of 2024 also stands disposed of. (Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.) (Arun Kumar Rai, J.) Rohit/-