JUDGMENT : SANDEEP KUMAR, J. 1. By way of this writ petition, the petitioners have prayed for the following reliefs:- “i. For issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash the order as contained in memo no.4878 dated 20.11.2024 passed in Miscellaneous Case No. 04 of 2024 by the respondent no.3 whereby the representation dated 05.08.2024 filed by the petitioners for refund of the amount of Rs.1,26,14,190/- with interest has been rejected on non est ground which order is arbitrary, illegal and unsustainable. ii. For issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to hold and declare that after the setting aside of the order as contained in memo no.4878 dated 20.11.2024 passed in Miscellaneous Case No.04 of 2024 by the respondent no. 3, the petitioners are entitled for refund on pro rata basis the bid amount for the period 07.02.2019 to 08.06.2019 i.e. the period in which the petitioner was precluded from carrying out the mining activities on account of unwarranted, invalid and illegal order of cancellation of settlement which was subsequently set aside on merits and thus, the petitioners are entitled for a refund of Rs. 1,26,14,190/- along with 12% interest from the date the husband of the petitioner no.1 was forced to deposit till the date of its realization as the respondent authority has extracted the aforesaid amount under threat and duress and without any justifiable reasons and therefore, a direction may be issued to the respondent authority to refund the amount of Rs.1,26,14,190/- with 12% interest from the year 2019 till the date of realization.” 2 . One Md. Israil had participated in a public auction held on 13.01.2015 for the settlement of entire sand ghat (balu ghat) for a period of five years, in the district of Kishanganj, and had emerged successful as the highest bidder. Accordingly, the sand ghat in the district of Kishanganj was settled in his favour. Thereafter, upon deposit of the requisite amount, the settlement deed was executed. 3. The present petitioners are the legal heirs of aforesaid Md. Israil - sand ghat settlee, who had passed away on 19.08.2022. Petitioner no. 1 is the widow, and the petitioner nos. 2 to 5 are the sons and daughters of the aforesaid Md. Israil-sand ghat settlee respectively. 4. 3. The present petitioners are the legal heirs of aforesaid Md. Israil - sand ghat settlee, who had passed away on 19.08.2022. Petitioner no. 1 is the widow, and the petitioner nos. 2 to 5 are the sons and daughters of the aforesaid Md. Israil-sand ghat settlee respectively. 4. The nucleus of the present lis is whether, in the facts of the present case, the sand ghat settlee was entitled for refund for a period of legal disability caused exclusively by a quasi-judicial cancellation order passed by the Collector, Kishanganj, that was later set aside by the revisional authority-Mines Commissioner and remanded back for fresh consideration and subsequent thereto, the lease of the settlee was restored. Further whether the State can continue to fasten monetary burden for the very period during which the settlee was legally disabled from operating the sand ghat by an order which was subsequently set aside. 5. The brief facts relevant for the present purpose is that based on complaints received, the Collector, Kishanganj, constituted an enquiry team to inquire into the allegations against the sand ghat settlee, i.e., the husband of petitioner no.1 (hereinafter referred as ‘sand ghat settlee’). Pursuant thereto, the enquiry committee conducted joint inspection of five sand ghats and submitted a joint enquiry report before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Kishanganj, wherein it was found that there was deficiency of 41,99,050 CFT of sand, during the physical verification, as compared to the figures reported as ‘stocked’ by the sand ghat settlee, leading to the imputation that he had inflated the stock figures to engage in illegal mining during the prohibited period from the months of July to September 2018, in alleged violation of Rules 21(k), 24 and 40 of the Bihar Minor Mineral Concession Rules as well as the provisions of the Environment (Protection) Act. The allegation against the sand ghat settlee was that 41,99,050 CFT of sand remained unaccounted and that he had shown inflated figures so that in the prohibited months he could carry out illegal mining. 6. Based on the aforesaid report, a show cause notice dated 21.08.2018, was issued by the Collector Kishanganj, calling upon the sand ghat settlee to submit his explanation within 07 days. 6. Based on the aforesaid report, a show cause notice dated 21.08.2018, was issued by the Collector Kishanganj, calling upon the sand ghat settlee to submit his explanation within 07 days. Responding to the aforesaid show-cause, the sand ghat settlee submitted his reply on 28.08.2018 stating therein that he had never furnished inflated figures and that during the relevant period i.e. from 05.07.2018 to 07.07.2018 there was a flash flood, due to which the river got spread leading to massive depletion of sand stock in the area. The sand ghat settlee had also stated in the reply to the show- cause that the figures reported by him were after proper measurement. In order to fortify the said measurement figures, it was stated that the Mines Inspector, Kishanganj on 03.07.2018 had physically inspected the sand ghat, to verify the quantity of sand stocked at the ghat and upon physical measurement had assessed the sand stocked and stored at the sand ghats within 300 feet as 48,56,600 CFT. In the aforesaid reply, the sand ghat setlee had also contended that flood and overflowing of water in the river had hit Kishanganj town between 05.07.2018 and 07.07.2018, resulting in massive depletion of sand stock and this fact was duly informed by the sand ghat settlee vide letter dated 06.07.2018 to the District Mining Officer, Kishanganj. The Collector, Kishanganj thereafter constituted another four member enquiry team for inspection of two sand ghats and the inspection/raid was conducted by the team on 04.12.2018 and on the very same date i.e., 04.12.2018, a joint report was submitted wherein certain irregularities were noticed. 7. Based on the aforesaid enquiry report dated 04.12.2018, the Collector, Kishanganj issued another show cause of even date wherein altogether eleven charges were levelled against the sand ghat settlee and he was directed to submit his reply within 24 hours. 8. The aforesaid show cause was assailed before this Court by way of C.W.J.C. No. 24330 of 2018 titled as Md. Israil vs. State of Bihar & Ors. and this Court vide order dated 21.12.2018 directed the sand ghat settlee to submit his reply on or before 15.01.2019 and further restrained the Collector, Kishanganj from taking any coercive action during the interim period. The aforesaid order dated 21.12.2018 reads as under:- “Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Special Public Prosecutor (Mines). and this Court vide order dated 21.12.2018 directed the sand ghat settlee to submit his reply on or before 15.01.2019 and further restrained the Collector, Kishanganj from taking any coercive action during the interim period. The aforesaid order dated 21.12.2018 reads as under:- “Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Special Public Prosecutor (Mines). This writ petition has been filed for quashing the show cause notice dated 4.12.2018 issued by Memo No. 2853/C Kishanganj by the Collector, Kishanganj, on the ground that same is wholly without jurisdiction. The show cause notice does not meet statutory requirement. The Special P.P. (Mines) submits that till date the Collector has not passed final order in the matter. Therefore, at this stage, this writ application would be pre-mature. He further submits that petitioner has not filed show cause before the competent authority in terms of show cause notice dated 4.12.2018 and has moved this Hon’ble Court for quashing the show cause notice. Counsel for the petitioner submits that in the show cause notice, he has been given only 24 hours time to file show cause which is not justified. He further submits that petitioner vide Annexure-14 has made request with the authority concerned to grant at least one week time to file show cause. In such circumstances, this writ petition is disposed off with direction to the competent authority to grant time to the petitioner till 15th January, 2019 to submit show cause before him in terms of show cause notice dated 4.12.2018 (Annexure-12). After receipt of show cause from the petitioner, the competent authority i.e. District Magistrate, Kishanganj, will dispose off the matter and pass appropriate order within one month of filing show cause by the petitioner. Petitioner is given liberty to take recourse to the remedy available in law, in the event he will be aggrieved by the order passed by the competent authority. In the meantime, the District Magistrate and Collector Kishanganj, will not take any coercive steps against the petitioner till 15 th January, 2019.” 9. In compliance of the afore-quoted order, the sand ghat settlee filed his detailed reply on 15.01.2019 and thereafter, the Collector, Kishanganj registered Misc. Case No. 01 of 2018 (Mines). In the aforesaid Misc. In the meantime, the District Magistrate and Collector Kishanganj, will not take any coercive steps against the petitioner till 15 th January, 2019.” 9. In compliance of the afore-quoted order, the sand ghat settlee filed his detailed reply on 15.01.2019 and thereafter, the Collector, Kishanganj registered Misc. Case No. 01 of 2018 (Mines). In the aforesaid Misc. Case, the Collector, Kishanganj cancelled the settlement of the sand ghat allotted to the sand ghat settlee vide order dated 29.01.2019, which was assailed by preferring a statutory revision before the Mines Commissioner and the aforesaid revision application preferred by the sand ghat settlee was registered as Revision Case No.04 of 2019. The Mines Commissioner after duly issuing notice to the Collector and hearing the Mines Inspector as well as the revisionist i.e. sand ghat settlee, had vide order dated 03.05.2019 remitted the matter back to the Collector, Kishanganj for fresh consideration after setting aside the order dated 29.01.2019. The matter was remitted with respect to the alleged discrepancy in the quantity of sand, as no finding had been recorded on the specific plea raised by the settlee that the sand had been washed away due to flood and overflowing water. 10. Upon remand, the Collector, Kishanganj again heard both the parties and also called for a report from the Executive Engineer, Flood Control and Drainage System, Kishanganj. Pursuant thereto, the aforesaid Executive Engineer submitted his report on 29.05.2019 stating therein that due to excessive rainfall, the water levels in rivers Koshi, Mahananda, Mechi and Parwan were above the danger mark in the district of Kishanganj on 05.07.2018. The Collector, Kishanganj after considering the materials on record vide order dated 08.06.2019 restored the settlement of the sand ghat settlee. 11. After restoration of the sand ghat in favour of sand ghat settlee, the respondent Mining Department issued letter directing the sand ghat settlee to deposit the second instalment of royalty for the calender year 2019 along with interest. In response to the aforesaid letter, the sand ghat settlee submitted a representation dated 04.07.2019 before the Collector, Kishanganj, seeking remission on a pro-rata basis during the period in which he was precluded from carrying out mining operation and consequently, he further requested that the amount already paid be adjusted against the subsequent instalments. In response to the aforesaid letter, the sand ghat settlee submitted a representation dated 04.07.2019 before the Collector, Kishanganj, seeking remission on a pro-rata basis during the period in which he was precluded from carrying out mining operation and consequently, he further requested that the amount already paid be adjusted against the subsequent instalments. The Collector, Kishanganj sought an opinion from the Director, Mines on the point whether the sand ghat settlee is entitled for pro-rata exemption from payment of bid amount for the period he was restrained from carrying out mining operations on account of cancellation of settlement. The Assistant Director replied vide letter dated 02.08.2019 that since the cancellation order dated 19.01.2019 was passed for carrying mining operation in violation of Rules, the sand ghat settlee was not entitles for exemption. Thereafter the Collector, Kishanganj directed the sand ghat settlee to deposit the second instalment of royalty for the calender year 2019. Aggrieved by the inaction on the representation and the persistent demand for second instalment of royalty for the calender year 2019, the sand ghat settlee preferred a writ petition vide C.W.J.C. No. 17138 of 2019 titled as Batsha Khatoon & Ors. vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. 12. It is the case of the petitioners that subsequent to the filing of the earlier writ petition in C.W.J.C. No.17138 of 2019, the Assistant Director, Department of Mines, Purnea Circle issued a letter dated 06.09.2019 directing the Mines Inspector to institute a criminal case against the sand ghat settlee, in the event of failure to comply with the directions to deposit second instalment of royalty for the calender year 2019. The sand ghat settlee had deposited the entire pending amount, under protest and without prejudice to his rights. The sand ghat settlee passed away on 19.08.2022 and the present petitioners were substituted in his place in the earlier writ petition being C.W.J.C. No. 17138 of 2019, as his legal heirs. The aforesaid writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 11.07.2014. The relevant portion of the aforesaid order reads as under: “.................. 3. The limited case of the petitioners is that the mining of the ghats in the District of Kishanganj was settled for a period of five years (16.01.2015 to 31.12.2019), he being the highest bidder. 4. The aforesaid writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 11.07.2014. The relevant portion of the aforesaid order reads as under: “.................. 3. The limited case of the petitioners is that the mining of the ghats in the District of Kishanganj was settled for a period of five years (16.01.2015 to 31.12.2019), he being the highest bidder. 4. Learned counsel submits that he continued with his work with full satisfaction of respondents and was diligent in making payment in the installments. 5. It is his case that on the basis of certain allegation, the respondent no. 3, the Collector, Kishanganj passed an order on 29.01.2019 in Misc. Case No. 01 of 2018 (State vs. Md. Israil) which was communicated vide memo no. 204 dated 02.02.2019 by which the lease deed was cancelled (Annexure- 14 to the writ petition). 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that a revision was preferred against the said order before the Mines Commissioner, Bihar vide Revision Case No. 04 of 2019 (Md. Israil vs. Collector, Kishanganj and Ors.) which came to be disposed of on 03.05.2019 and the Mines Commissioner was pleased to set aside the order dated 29.01.2019 passed by the Collector, Kishanganj remanding it back for a fresh decision in the light of Rule 24(3) of the Bihar Minor and Mineral Concession Rules, 1972 (Annexure-15 to the writ petition). 7. Learned counsel submits that the Collector, Kishanganj thereafter took up the matter, heard the parties and vide an order dated 08.06.2019, the lease deed was restored to him. (Annexure-16 to the writ petition). 8. He submits that close on the heels, came the demand letter No. 596 dated 15.06.2019 as also 660 dated 12.07.2019 issued by the Mines Inspector-cum- Competent Authority, Kishanganj directing him to pay the second installment for a financial year, 2019 with interest. He submits that admittedly, between February, 2019 (when the lease deed was cancelled) to 08.06.2019, when it was restored, there was no lease between the parties and as such, the Mines Inspector could not have demanded the amount for the said period. 9. He submits that aggrieved, a petition was preferred by the petitioner before the Collector, Kishanganj on 04.07.2019 (Annexure-17 to the writ petition) but no decision was taken. It was later forwarded to the Mines Department and the Joint Director (Headquarter) rejected the said representation vide order/memo no. 9. He submits that aggrieved, a petition was preferred by the petitioner before the Collector, Kishanganj on 04.07.2019 (Annexure-17 to the writ petition) but no decision was taken. It was later forwarded to the Mines Department and the Joint Director (Headquarter) rejected the said representation vide order/memo no. 2554 dated 02.08.2019 (Annexure-20 to the I.A. No. 01 of 2019). 10. Learned counsel submits that due to the threat of the FIR, he deposited Rs. 55 lakhs on 19.11.2019 followed by another Rs. 55 lakhs by way of challans on 21.11.2019 under protest which are part of the Interlocutory application. 11. He submits that so far as the payment part is concerned, there is no dispute with the respondents. He submits that when admittedly, he was out of lease for four months, the petitioners have every right to ask for the refund. 12. Though, the counter-affidavit on behalf of respondent Nos. 3 and 4, the Collector and the Mines Inspector- cum-Competent Officer, Kishanganj respectively is/are on record and learned counsel for the Mines took this Court to paragraphs – 8 to 10 to support the rejection/demand, it nowhere answers to the question put forward by the petitioner as to whether for the period, his lease deed was cancelled, he is entitled to the refund or not. 13. It seems, the respondents signed the statement of facts without bothering to think about the question that has been raised in the writ petition and/or whether it needs an answer or not. 14. In that background, it would be appropriate that the Principal Secretary-cum-Mines Commissioner, Department of Mines in Geology, Bihar, Patna (respondent no. 2) look into the matter and pass an appropriate order. 15. Accordingly, ordered. The petitioner to represent before the respondent No. 2, The Principal Secretary-cum-Mines Commissioner, Department of Mines and Geology, Government of Bihar, Patna with all the necessary documents in next four weeks. 16. If he prefers the said petition within the aforesaid period, the respondent No. 2, The Principal Secretary-cum-Mines Commissioner, Department of Mines and Geology, Bihar, Patna shall take up the matter and after hearing the parties including the respondent Nos. 3 and 4, if required, will pass the order within a period of three months thereafter. 17. 16. If he prefers the said petition within the aforesaid period, the respondent No. 2, The Principal Secretary-cum-Mines Commissioner, Department of Mines and Geology, Bihar, Patna shall take up the matter and after hearing the parties including the respondent Nos. 3 and 4, if required, will pass the order within a period of three months thereafter. 17. If the respondent No. 2, The Principal Secretary-cum-Mines Commissioner, Department of Mines and Geology, Bihar, Patna comes to a conclusion that the petitioner is entitled to the relief sought for, the payment has to be made within next four weeks of the passing of the order. 18. It is made clear that the respondent No. 2, The Principal Secretary-cum-Mines Commissioner, Department of Mines and Geology, Bihar, Patna shall take an independent decision without going into the earlier order, if any passed by any respondent authority/authorities 19. The present writ petition stands disposed of.” 13. Pursuant to the direction passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 17138 of 2019, the present petitioners submitted a detailed representation dated 05.08.2024 claiming liability to pay only the proportionate amount despite the truncated period and a consequent refund of Rs. 1,26,14,190/- with interest. The aforesaid representation was rejected by the respondent no. 3 vide impugned order dated 20.11.2024 passed in Misc. Case No. 04 of 2024, which has been assailed in the present writ petition. 14. Learned counsel for the petitioner, at the outset, submits that the sand ghat settlee, was proceeded against, based on a complaint dated 30.09.2018 lodged by one Vijay Kumar Singh, a reverse settlee whose settlement had earlier been cancelled. In the aforesaid complaint, it was alleged that the husband of the petitioner no.1 was using a poclain machine for excavating sand. The learned counsel further submits that the respondent Collector, Kishanganj has demonstrated mala fide against the sand ghat settlee, which is illustrated by the very fact that the inspection report was never served upon him and the response to the second show cause was demanded within an unreasonable period of 24 hours. It is submitted that, noticing these factors, a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court had not only permitted the sand ghat settlee to submit his response at a later date but also restrained the respondent Collector, Kishanganj from taking any coercive action. 15. It is submitted that, noticing these factors, a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court had not only permitted the sand ghat settlee to submit his response at a later date but also restrained the respondent Collector, Kishanganj from taking any coercive action. 15. Adverting to the revisional order dated 03.05.2019, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the aforesaid order is a reasoned one where the Mines Commissioner had noted that the then Collector, Kishanganj had acted arbitrarily and that such cancellation could benefit unscrupulous elements. Furthermore, the learned counsel submits that the remand of the case was done after considering the merits of the case and the subsequent order of the Collector, Kishanganj restoring the settlement of the sand ghat settlee was also done on merits as such the sand ghat settlee could not be prejudiced, it is therefore the categorical submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the original cancellation order dated 29.01.2019 was not justified on facts or in law and further that the allegations leading to the aforesaid cancellation were factually unsustainable motivated by rival complaints and based on conjecture and surmise. Furthermore, relying upon the subsequent revisional order passed in Revision Case No. 04 of 2019 and the eventual restoration of the settlement of the sand ghat vide order dated 08.06.2019, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the original cancellation did not survive quasi-judicial revisional scrutiny. It is the submission on behalf of the petitioners that once the Mines Commissioner in revisional proceedings had set aside the cancellation and remitted the matter, and once the Collector, Kishanganj on remand had restored the lease on 08.06.2019 after finding that the stock-discrepancy allegation was without substance in light of the flood explanation and related material, the foundation of the earlier cancellation could not be sustained. Therefore, the respondent authorities cannot, in a later proceeding, revert back to the same allegations and treat the cancellation period as if it were justified. It is the next submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the Mines Commissioner in Revision Case No. 04 of 2019 did not merely extend sympathy or public- interest indulgence. Rather, the Mines Commissioner found that the allegations in the second show-cause to be unsupported by irrefutable evidence and were based on conjecture and surmise. It is the next submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the Mines Commissioner in Revision Case No. 04 of 2019 did not merely extend sympathy or public- interest indulgence. Rather, the Mines Commissioner found that the allegations in the second show-cause to be unsupported by irrefutable evidence and were based on conjecture and surmise. The learned Counsel for the petitioners place heavy reliance on the passage from the revisional order warning the Collector not to rush to cancel leases on frivolous grounds or for minor breaches and noting that parties defeated in auction often create mischief through frivolous complaints. 16. It is categorically submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that royalty/bid amount is directly relatable to the right to win, extract and sell minerals. It presupposes a subsisting settlement. Therefore, once the settlement was cancelled and the order of cancellation had been communicated, there was no operative lease during the relevant period between 07.02.2019 and 08.06.2019. It is submitted that during that period, the settlee could not lawfully excavate, transport, or sell sand, for reasons not attributable to him and accordingly, the respondent authorities had no authority to demand or retain the proportionate bid. It is the next submission that the payment of the second instalment for the year 2019 was made by the petitioner under threat of criminal case and under protest. It is further submitted that once the sand ghat settlee was precluded from conducting mining for no fault of his own, no royalty obligation for the specific period could arise and the respondents could not have saddled the sand ghat settlee with monetary obligations. 17. The learned Counsel for the petitioners adverting to the tender document, particularly clause 19(xii) thereunder, submits that the respondent no. 03 had relied on the aforesaid clause as one of the grounds to deny refund to the petitioners, however it is the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioners that clause 19(xii) deals with operational difficulties despite a subsisting lease, such as approach-road obstruction, demarcation issues, non-availability of minerals, or other difficulty in excavation, and merely says that in such circumstances the State will not reimburse or make good the loss suffered. It is emphasized by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that the aforesaid provision, does not apply where the lease itself stands cancelled and the settlee is deprived of the right to mine altogether. It is emphasized by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that the aforesaid provision, does not apply where the lease itself stands cancelled and the settlee is deprived of the right to mine altogether. Therefore, the reliance placed on Clause 19(xii) in the impugned order is wholly misplaced and unsustainable since the aforesaid clause 19(xii) pre-supposes the subsistence of a valid and operative lease and only contemplates inability to carry out mining due to operational difficulties. 18. Lastly, the learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that in the facts of the present case the petitioners being the legal heirs of the sand ghat settlee deserve a refund of the bid amount on a pro rata basis. 19. Per contra, the learned counsel for the answering respondent nos. 1 to 3, at the outset submits that the order passed by the then Collector, Kishanganj vide order dated 29.01.2019, is not arbitrary and the action against the sand ghat settlee was initiated after having received complaints of illegal mining. Further, the learned counsel has adverted to the orders dated 03.05.2019 and 08.06.2019 passed by the Revisional Authority and the Collector, Kishanganj upon remand, respectively, and submitted that neither of the aforesaid orders exempted the sand ghat settlee from paying the royalty during the intervening period during which the settlement of the settlee was cancelled. 20. It is next submitted on behalf of the answering respondent nos. 1 to 3, that no royalty exemption could be granted in absence of any express governing rules or contractual stipulation. It is submitted that refund of royalty can not be granted on purely equitable considerations in absence of governing statutory rules. In support of his submission the learned counsel for the answering respondent nos. 1 to 3 has relied upon a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajasthan State Industrial Development Corporation vs. Diamond & Gem Development Corporation Ltd. (2013) 5 SCC 470 . 21. It is the next submission of the learned counsel for the answering respondent nos. 1 to 3 that, levy of royalty for the settlement period has never been declared illegal, and until the levy itself is declared illegal, no refund could be granted in favour of the settlee. The learned counsel for the answering respondent nos. 21. It is the next submission of the learned counsel for the answering respondent nos. 1 to 3 that, levy of royalty for the settlement period has never been declared illegal, and until the levy itself is declared illegal, no refund could be granted in favour of the settlee. The learned counsel for the answering respondent nos. 1 to 3 has drawn strength from the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Municipal Committee, Katra vs. Ashwani Kumar, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 840. 22. Lastly, the learned counsel for the answering respondent nos. 1 to 3 has submitted that the prayer of the present petitioners are purely monetary in nature and as such is not amenable to writ jurisdiction. The learned counsel has relied upon a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Bihar vs. Jain Plastics and Chemicals Ltd. (2002) 1 SCC 2016. 23. A counter affidavit has also been filed on behalf of the respondent nos. 4 and 5. The learned counsel for the respondent nos. 4 and 5 has supported the impugned order by which the representation has been rejected and submitted that in the facts of the case, the petitioners do not deserve any indulgence from this Court. 24. I have considered the submissions of the parties and perused the materials on record. 25. The sand ghat settlee was allotted the sand ghat in the district of Kishanganj. The Collector, Kishanganj received complaint against the sand ghat settlee and pursuant thereto, an enquiry committee was constituted which submitted its report, based on which, the Collector, issued a show-cause notice to the sand ghat settlee, which was responded to by him. Subsequently, the Collector, again re-constituted another committee to conduct fresh inspection and thereafter, the said committee submitted its report on the very same day noticing certain discrepancies in the sand ghats. Pursuant thereto, another show-cause notice was issued to the sand ghat settlee and response was called within 24 hours. The aforesaid show-cause notice was assailed before this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 24330 of 2018 . A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 21.12.2018 had extended the time period for submission of the response to the show-cause and further restrained the Collector, Kishanganj from taking any coercive action against the sand ghat settlee. The aforesaid show-cause notice was assailed before this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 24330 of 2018 . A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 21.12.2018 had extended the time period for submission of the response to the show-cause and further restrained the Collector, Kishanganj from taking any coercive action against the sand ghat settlee. Thereafter, a response was submitted by the sand ghat settlee which prompted the Collector, Kishanganj to register Miscellaneous Case No.01 of 2018 (Mines) and vide order dated 29.01.2019 the settlement of the sand ghat settlee was cancelled. Thereafter, the aforesaid order was assailed before the Mines Commissioner in Revision, wherein the order of the Collector dated 29.01.2019 was set aside and the matter was remanded back to the Collector, Kishanganj for fresh consideration. The Collector, Kishanganj after hearing the matter afresh, restored the settlement. 26. Upon a perusal of the order of the Collector, Kishanganj dated 08.06.2019 by which the settlement of the sand ghat settlee was restored reveals that the Collector had duly considered the submissions of the parties with respect to flash flood in the district of Kishanganj during the relevant period and other submissions on merits and thereafter, directed for restoration of the settlement for the entire sand ghats in the district of Kishanganj with certain directions. 27 . In this backdrop, the nucleus of the present case is that the sand ghat settlee was precluded from operating the sand ghats which have been settled in his favour only on the strength an order passed by the then Collector, Kishanganj which was ultimately set aside and thereafter, the successor Collector, Kishanganj, on remand, passed fresh order restoring the settlement of the settlee. The impugned order dated 20.11.2024, by which the representation filed by the petitioners came to be rejected by holding that the then Mines Commissioner had adopted a lenient view in the matter and therefore, the petitioners are not entitled for any refund is not sustainable since the respondent no 03 while passing the impugned order dated 20.112024 can not supplement or interpret the order passed by the then Mines Commissioner. Further from the perusal of the impugned order dated 20.11.2024, it appears that the respondent authority has subscribed to the assertion that the sand ghat settlee had contravened the mining rules and that further he was in fault due to which his settlement came to be cancelled, however, once the order of cancellation came to be set aside on merits and the restoration was ordered by the successor Collector, Kishanganj, the aforesaid assertion could not have been a relevant factor for considering the prayer for refund. Moreover, this Court has noted that, the Co-ordinate bench of this Court vide order dated 11.07.2024 passed in CWJC No. 17138 of 2019 , had categorically directed the Principal Secretary-cum-Mines Commissioner to take an independent decision in the matter, however the impugned order has been passed by the respondent no.3 (Director, Department of Mines & Geology). 28. It is a settled proposition of law that an order passed by a judicial or quasi judicial authority must stand or fall based on the reasons contained in it. The order passed by the Mines Commissioner dated 03.05.2019 cannot be recast and coloured as having been passed with a ‘linient view’ by the respondent authority while passing the impugned order dated 20.11.2024. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commr. , (1978) 1 SCC 405 had held as under: - “8. The second equally relevant matter is that when a statutory functionary makes an order based on certain grounds, its validity must be judged by the reasons so mentioned and cannot be supplemented by fresh reasons in the shape of affidavit or otherwise. Otherwise, an order bad in the beginning may, by the time it comes to court on account of a challenge, get validated by additional grounds later brought out. We may here draw attention to the observations of Bose, J. in Gordhandas Bhanji [Commr. of Police, Bombay v. Gordhandas Bhanji, 1951 SCC 1088 : AIR 1952 SC 16 ] : “Public orders, publicly made, in exercise of a statutory authority cannot be construed in the light of explanations subsequently given by the officer making the order of what he meant, or of what was in his mind, or what he intended to do. of Police, Bombay v. Gordhandas Bhanji, 1951 SCC 1088 : AIR 1952 SC 16 ] : “Public orders, publicly made, in exercise of a statutory authority cannot be construed in the light of explanations subsequently given by the officer making the order of what he meant, or of what was in his mind, or what he intended to do. Public orders made by public authorities are meant to have public effect and are intended to affect the actings and conduct of those to whom they are addressed and must be construed objectively with reference to the language used in the order itself.” Orders are not like old wine becoming better as they grow older.” 29. Therefore, the order of the Mines Commissioner dated 03.05.2019 cannot be supplemented or coloured by a subsequent order dated 20.112024 passed by the respondent no. 03, while considering the representation of the petitioners. The reasons that weighed with the then Mines Commissioner while setting aside the order of the Collector has to be ascertained and drawn from the very order itself. From perusal of the order passed by the Mines Commissioner dated 03.05.2019 and the order dated 08.06.2019 passed by the Collector, Kishanganj, it is abundantly clear that setting aside of the earlier order of cancellation of settlement and its subsequent restoration respectively, were both done on merits after considering the relevant factors. Therefore the impugned order dated 20.11.2024 is not sustainable since firstly, it attempts to recast and colour the earlier order passed by the Mines Commissioner as having been passed with a lenient view which is impermissible, secondly, the fault is tethered on the sand ghat settlee despite the fact that on merits such contentions had already been crystallised and the settlement has been restored with certain directions and thirdly, though the representation was directed to be decided by the Principal Secretary-cum- Mines Commissioner by taking an independent decision in the matter, however the impugned order has been passed by the respondent no.3 (Director, Department of Mines & Geology). Accordingly, the impugned order dated 20.11.2024 stands vitiated. 30. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 20.11.2024 stands vitiated. 30. Now, coming to the second issue, whether the sand ghat settlee was liable to pay the royalty during the period when his settlement stood cancelled, in this regard, it would be apposite to refer to a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Jai Durga Finvest (P) Ltd. vs. State of Haryana & Ors. (2004) 3 SCC 381 wherein it has been held as under:- “10. The question, thus, which was required to be posed and answered was as to whether clause 18-A of the agreement would remain enforceable despite the fact that the appellant allegedly could not extract any sand by reasons of omission and commission on the part of the respondents concerned. The appellant herein has raised a plea that the contract became impossible to be performed as the landowners of the area in question did not receive compensation and despite request, the third respondent did not enforce clause 27 of the agreement. 11. It is not in dispute that the grant of mining lease in favour of the appellant herein for the extraction of mineral sand by the respondents is governed by the provisions of the Punjab Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1964. In terms of Rule 33 the bidder is required to execute a deed in Form ‘L’. Clause 27 of the agreement in Form ‘L’ obligates the respondents to comply with the request made in terms thereof. The Appellate Authority had not considered this aspect of the matter. The High Court also did not apply its mind in this behalf. The first question that arises is whether the respondents complied with their statutory obligations when the request was made by the appellant. If not, the second question would be the effect of non-compliance with the statutory obligation of the respondents which formed part of the contract insofar as they did not comply with the appellant's request as aforementioned which had a direct bearing on the right of the appellant to raise sand. If not, the second question would be the effect of non-compliance with the statutory obligation of the respondents which formed part of the contract insofar as they did not comply with the appellant's request as aforementioned which had a direct bearing on the right of the appellant to raise sand. The High Court, as noticed hereinbefore, has merely proceeded on the basis that the appellant had entered into the contract with his eyes wide open; but, the same would not, in our opinion, mean that they were bound to pay the contract amount, get its security amount forfeited, as also pay interest at the rate of 24 per cent, although it could not, by reason of acts of omission and commission on the part of the respondents, carry out the mining operation as per the terms of the agreement. 12. Whether in such a situation the doctrine of frustration will be invoked or not should have been considered by the High Court. [See M.D., Army Welfare Housing Organisation v. Sumangal Services (P) Ltd. [ (2003) 8 Scale 424 (2)] 13. For the reasons aforementioned, the impugned judgment cannot be sustained, which is set aside accordingly. The appeal is allowed and the matter is remitted back to the High Court for consideration of the matter afresh in the light of the observations made herein on an early date. No costs. 31. Further the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Chitra v. State of Kerala, (2016) 1 SCC 685 , had held as under:- “5. The facts are neither disputed nor are they convoluted. The appellant had submitted an application on 16-3-1990 for the grant of an FL 3 licence in respect of her Hotel Chanakya at Trivandrum, which had been granted. However, it transpired that a third party filed a suit in which the Munsif Court, Trivandrum granted an interim injunction restraining the Excise Commissioner from issuing the said licence to the appellant for user at her said hotel. This suit, along with another suit similar to it, was eventually dismissed on 29-9-1993. In an ensuing appeal, the District Judge granted an ad interim injunction on 15-4-1994, which came to be vacated on 3-6-1994. On 23-11-1994, the respondent rejected the appellant's application for the FL 3 licence due to an amendment to the Foreign Liquor Rules which had resulted in private parties being ineligible for FL 3 licences. In an ensuing appeal, the District Judge granted an ad interim injunction on 15-4-1994, which came to be vacated on 3-6-1994. On 23-11-1994, the respondent rejected the appellant's application for the FL 3 licence due to an amendment to the Foreign Liquor Rules which had resulted in private parties being ineligible for FL 3 licences. Consequently, the appellant filed OP No. 18145 of 1994, which was allowed by the Single Judge. Acting in accordance with the Single Judge's directions, the Excise Commissioner granted the licence and raised a demand of only the proportionate licence fee which was duly deposited; but the matter was brought before the Division Bench in the subject appeal. As already mentioned, it seems most likely that the attention of the Division Bench which passed the impugned judgment was not brought to bear on the already existing binding decisions in R. Vijayakumar [1994 Supp (2) SCC 47 : (1993) 4 Scale 386 ] as well as Jayadevan v. Board of Revenue [1998 SCC OnLine Ker 209 : (1999) 1 KLJ 87 ] wherein the Division Bench of the High Court of Kerala has held that the licensee is required to pay only the proportionate licence fee if the delay in granting the licence, or utilising it, as the case may be, are for reasons not attributable to the said licensee. 6. We are in agreement with the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant that the legal principle to the effect that no person can be prejudiced because of an act of a court is apposite and relevant in the present case. We say this keeping in perspective the position that although the appellant had applied for the FL 3 licence which would ordinarily run the course of one financial year, due to interim orders passed by the courts, the appellant could only utilise it for a fraction of that period. We hasten to clarify that the appellant's application was not made in the duration of that year and was thus initially not for a fraction of the financial year. This Court has already held in R. Vijayakumar [1994 Supp (2) SCC 47 : (1993) 4 Scale 386 ] , in the circumstances prevailing in that case, that the Department could not interfere with the utilisation of the FL 3 licence, provided that the licensee complied with all other conditions as well as “payment of annual rental proportionately”. This Court has already held in R. Vijayakumar [1994 Supp (2) SCC 47 : (1993) 4 Scale 386 ] , in the circumstances prevailing in that case, that the Department could not interfere with the utilisation of the FL 3 licence, provided that the licensee complied with all other conditions as well as “payment of annual rental proportionately”. It is, therefore, clear that Rule 14 would not impede or inhibit the charging of annual proportionate fee so long as no failure is placed on the licensee or it is blameworthy itself. We must be quick to clarify that in the event that a party applies for a period which is obviously not effective for the entire financial year, such as applying for a licence midway that financial year, the full fee for that year may be claimable or chargeable and, therefore, would have to be paid. In other words, had the appellant applied for the licence even with the knowledge that because of external factors such as a pre-existing injunction order, etc., she would not have been able to exploit it for the entire year, she may not have been liable to pay the licence fee for the entire year. This is not the factual matrix which obtains in the case at hand; the licence could only be granted for the period from 21-12-1999 to 31-3-2000 i.e. till the close of that financial year, owing to unforeseeable circumstances beyond the ken and control of the parties before us. We have already made a mention of the Division Bench judgment delivered in Jayadevan [1998 SCC OnLine Ker 209 : (1999) 1 KLJ 87 ] which in turn was referred to in another Division Bench judgment in Rajagopalan Nair v. Commr. of Excise [1989 SCC OnLine Ker 387 : (1989) 1 KLT 800 ] , wherein the Division Bench directed that the licensee was entitled to remission of payment of kisht because of being disabled to conduct its business on account of the interim orders passed by the Court. We affirm the conclusions arrived at in these decisions. of Excise [1989 SCC OnLine Ker 387 : (1989) 1 KLT 800 ] , wherein the Division Bench directed that the licensee was entitled to remission of payment of kisht because of being disabled to conduct its business on account of the interim orders passed by the Court. We affirm the conclusions arrived at in these decisions. We hold that a party is entitled to seek a remission in the payment of licence fee if it is precluded from transacting business on the strength of that licence because of factors and reasons extraneous to it and/or if it is granted the licence on the direction of a court for only a portion of the financial year. 7. The appeal is accordingly allowed. The respondent State shall, within six weeks from today, refund to the appellant the balance amount of Rs 9,41,257 together with interest thereon @ 6% p.a. with effect from 11-8-2005. Failure to do so shall render the respondent State liable to refund the aforementioned sum of Rs 9,41,257 together with interest @ 12% p.a. calculated from 11-8-2005 till the date of payment and also additionally liable for payment of costs quantified at Rs 15,000 (Rupees fifteen thousand only).” 32. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Beg Raj Singh v. State of U.P. , (2003) 1 SCC 726 had held that the rights get crystalised on the date of commencement of the litigation and, therefore, the settlement holder would be entitled to the relief of continuing the lease till the expiry of the lease term. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid case had held as under:- 6. The only submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the appellant has been given a very rough deal by the State Government and the injustice done to the appellant the High Court has failed to redeem. He had identified and explored the new mining area and made huge expenditure in making the mining area approachable and therefore it was the legitimate expectation of the appellant that he would be entitled to operate the mine for a minimum period of three years as per the declared policy of the State Government. He had identified and explored the new mining area and made huge expenditure in making the mining area approachable and therefore it was the legitimate expectation of the appellant that he would be entitled to operate the mine for a minimum period of three years as per the declared policy of the State Government. The State Government should not have interfered with the order of the Collector and that too at the instance of a third party — Respondent 3, when no auction was held and no right was created in favour of Respondent 3. Matter as to the grant or renewal of the lease for a total period of three years was in accordance with the policy of the State Government and was a matter between the State and the appellant. It was submitted at the end that the appellant has been agitating his right diligently throughout and the time lost in prosecuting legal proceedings up to the High Court wherein the plea raised by the appellant laying challenge to the order of the State Government was found to be meritorious and the order of the State Government held liable to be set aside, the appellant should not have been denied relief and should have been allowed to operate the mine for that period by which the mining operation by the appellant fell short of three years' time. 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, as also the learned counsel for the State and the private respondent, we are satisfied that the petition deserves to be allowed. The ordinary rule of litigation is that the rights of the parties stand crystallized on the date of commencement of litigation and the right to relief should be decided by reference to the date on which the petitioner entered the portals of the court. A petitioner, though entitled to relief in law, may yet be denied relief in equity because of subsequent or intervening events i.e. the events between the commencement of litigation and the date of decision. The relief to which the petitioner is held entitled may have been rendered redundant by lapse of time or may have been rendered incapable of being granted by change in law. The relief to which the petitioner is held entitled may have been rendered redundant by lapse of time or may have been rendered incapable of being granted by change in law. There may be other circumstances which render it inequitable to grant the petitioner any relief over the respondents because of the balance tilting against the petitioner on weighing inequities pitted against equities on the date of judgment. Third-party interests may have been created or allowing relief to the claimant may result in unjust enrichment on account of events happening in-between. Else the relief may not be denied solely on account of time lost in prosecuting proceedings in judicial or quasi- judicial forum and for no fault of the petitioner. A plaintiff or petitioner having been found entitled to a right to relief, the court would as an ordinary rule try to place the successful party in the same position in which he would have been if the wrong complained against would not have been done to him. The present one is such a case. The delay in final decision cannot, in any manner, be attributed to the appellant. No auction has taken place. No third-party interest has been created. The sand mine has remained unoperated for the period for which the period of operation falls short of three years. The operation had to be stopped because of the order of the State Government intervening which order has been found unsustainable in accordance with stipulations contained in the mining lease consistently with GO issued by the State of Uttar Pradesh. Merely because a little higher revenue can be earned by the State Government that cannot be a ground for not enforcing the obligation of the State Government which it has incurred in accordance with its own policy decision. 33. A Co-ordinate bench of this Court in the case of Jan Kalyan Sharmik Swalambi Shakari Samitee Limited vs. State of Bihar & Ors. C.W.J.C. No. 8591 of 2012 , had directed for recalculation of the dues for the period during which the settlee- petitioner therein, was precluded from excavating sand and has held as under:- “17. 33. A Co-ordinate bench of this Court in the case of Jan Kalyan Sharmik Swalambi Shakari Samitee Limited vs. State of Bihar & Ors. C.W.J.C. No. 8591 of 2012 , had directed for recalculation of the dues for the period during which the settlee- petitioner therein, was precluded from excavating sand and has held as under:- “17. It is admitted case of the respondents that petitioner was banned from lifting sand from sand ghat D on 16.1.2009 and thereafter, lifting of sand from sand ghat D was forcibly stopped giving direction to all concerned officers-in- charge of police stations vide his order dated 16.02.2009 and, therefore, it is apparent that the petitioner was not in a position to extract sand from sand ghat D after 06.02.2009 and, therefore, at best, respondents can make responsible to the petitioner for deposit the amount till 06.02.2009 and the respondents can not realize the amount after 06.02.2009. 18. So far as allegation of illegal extracting of sand from sand ghat D and selling ghats to different persons are concerned, admittedly,respondents did not lodge any FIR in respect of seizure of so- called fake and forged challans as well as illegal mining against any person including the petitioner, particularly, in the circumstance, when there is specific provision in rule 40 of the Bihar Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1972 for institution of the FIR. 19. However, I have already stated that the petitioner denied the aforesaid allegation but no opportunity, was given to the petitioner to rebut the aforesaid allegation. It is pertinent to note here that settlement of the petitioner was cancelled mainly on the ground of making default in deposit of instalment and not on the ground of illegal extraction of sand from sand ghat D. 20. As I have already stated that the petitioner was debarred from extraction of sand vide order dated 16.01.2009 and he was forcibly stopped from extracting sand from sand ghat D with the help of the concerned officers-in-charge of police stations vide order dated 06.02.2009 and, therefore, in my view, the respondents can not realize any rent/royalty from the petitioner after 06.02.2009. 21. 21. On the basis of the aforesaid discussions, this writ petition stands disposed of with direction to the respondents to re-calculate the dues amount including rent/royalty till 06.02.2009 and pass a fresh order in respect of realization of dues amount from the petitioner in accordance with rules and adjust the same with the amount already deposited by the petitioner with the respondents and return the remaining amount, if any, to petitioner within 30days from the recalculation of the dues amount.” 34. Further a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Chandan Kuma vs. State of Bihar & Ors. (C.W.J.C. No. 6526 of 2017), after noticing that the settlee - petitioner therein, could not carry out mining activity on account of delay attributable to the respondents, had directed for adjusting the amount payable by the settlee and had held as under:- “In my opinion, the circumstances discussed would confirm, that the State is litigating at its worse level for even when it is undisputed that the petitioner could not operate the Sand Ghats for even a single day in 2016 primarily because the Mining Department delayed the approval to the mining plan which was issued on 27.12.2016 and which delay was perpetuated by the State Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority, Bihar in delaying the grant of environmental clearance. The State yet intends to pocket that amount by denying the benefit to the petitioner and penalizing the petitioner without any fault. This cannot be allowed. The principle of unjust enrichment applies to all and in the present case the State cannot be allowed to become unjustly rich at the cost of a bona-fide settlee. In the circumstances this writ petition is allowed. The authorities of the Mining Department more particularly the respondent no.3 and 4 are accordingly directed to raise a fresh demand within a period of 4 weeks of receipt/production of a copy of this order in accordance with law, for the remaining period of 2017 after adjusting the settlement amount realized from the petitioner for the year 2016 bearing in mind that more than 11 months has passed even in the year 2017.” 35. This Court has also noted that a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Amarnath Singh v. State of Bihar & Ors. , 2021 SCC OnLine Pat 2796 had held as under:- 18. This Court has also noted that a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Amarnath Singh v. State of Bihar & Ors. , 2021 SCC OnLine Pat 2796 had held as under:- 18. Having considered the rival submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the considered view that an obligation had been casted on the respondent-State/the respondent Mines Department, not only to prepare the mining plan and obtain the environmental clearance but also to issue work order to the petitioner, who is a successful bidder and execute a mining lease in his favor, more so after the respondent-State/the respondent Mines Department had got the security money, earnest money and other amounts deposited from the petitioner for the purposes of settlement of the sand ghats in question for a period of five years with effect from 01.01.2020 as per clause-9 of the tender document, however, the respondent- State/the respondent Mines Department has committed a breach of such statutory obligation, hence it cannot be permitted to take advantage of such a situation and make a profit out of its own wrong, thus the only just and legal course left to this Court, to set right the wrong, is to direct the respondent-State/the respondent Mines Department to refund the security money, earnest money and processing fees deposited by the petitioner for the purposes of being granted settlement of Aurangabad Sone Sand Ghat No. 32, pursuant to the E-auction held on 26.12.2019, along with interest @ of 9% per annum with effect from the day, the said amounts were deposited, till the date of payment, especially considering the fact that the respondent-State/the respondent Mines Department has illegally and in an unjust manner retained the aforesaid amount deposited by the petitioner. It is directed accordingly. 36. From the afore-quoted decisions, it is clear that the sand ghat settlee cannot be forced to pay the royalty in absence of any actual mining of sand, for the reasons not attributable to the sand ghat settlee. In the present case, the husband of the petitioner no.1 was precluded from carrying out mining operations on the strength of the order passed by the then Collector, Kishanganj in Miscellaneous Case No. 01 of 2018 (Mines) dated 29.01.2019, pertinently, the aforesaid order was set aside by the Revisional authority – Mines Commissioner vide order dated 03.05.2019 and subsequently, the settlement was restored by an order dated 08.06.2019. In such peculiar circumstances, the prejudicial consequences could not be borne by the husband of the petitioner no.1 and the State could not profit as a consequence and at the cost of the sand ghat settlee. 37. The State could not fasten monetary burden upon the settlee for the very period during which the settlee was legally disabled from operating the sand ghat settled in his favour by an order, which was subsequently set aside and ultimately the settlement stood restored. Further, the State cannot unjustly enrich itself at the cost of the sand ghat settlee by saddling him with royalty for the period during which no actual mining work took place on account of and on the strength of the cancellation order passed by the then Collector, Kishanganj, which was subsequently found unsustainable, more so when royalty is fundamentally tied to the mineral actually excavated and removed. 38. Therefore, the sand ghat settlee can not be saddled with monetary obligations during the period that the cancellation of settlement subsisted on the strength of the order of the then Collector Kishanganj which had subsequently failed revisional scrutiny. The revisional order passed by the Mines Commissioner, by setting aside the cancellation order, denudes the aforesaid order of its legal foundation which is further fortified by the fact that the settlement was subsequently restored. Consequently, any financial burden imposed upon the sand ghat settlee for the interregnum period, during which the cancellation subsisted would amount to unjust windfall. Accordingly, the petitioners deserve refund of the amount paid in protest for the period during which the sand ghat settlee could not operate the sand ghats allotted to him. 39 . This Court has noted that a substantial amount was paid under protest by the sand ghat settlee which has remained with the respondent authorities to the deprivation of the petitioners for about seven years. 40. In the case of Umesh Singh Yadav vs. State of Bihar,  C.W.J.C No. 13717 of 2021 , the Division Bench of this Court while considering the refund of security deposits for the sand ghat settlements made in the year 2019, had, in the facts of the case therein, allowed the petitioner therein to approach the appropriate authority for award of interest. A Co- ordinate Bench of this Court in Block Chain Warehousing and Jute Pvt. Limited vs. State of Bihar,  C.W.J.C No. 1249 of 2024, had also permitted the petitioner therein to approach the respondent authorities on the question of interest after the payment/refund of security amount. 41 . Furthermore, a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in M/s Asha Info Solutions Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Bihar, C.W.J.C No. 18194 of 2022 , while considering the non-payment of monies to a contractor despite timely finishing the work had directed for payment of compensatory interest on delayed payments. 42. It is, therefore, a settled position of law that the underlying principle guiding award of interest is that, interest payment is essentially compensatory in nature. 43. In the present case, the sand ghat settlee was precluded from operating the sand ghats allotted in his favour only on the strength of an order of cancellation which was subsequently set aside and the settlement was restored upon remand, however he had made the entire payment under protest and under fear of institution of criminal case against him. As such, the sand ghat settlee and the present petitioners have suffered deprivation of huge sum of money on account of the operation of an order which could not sustain the test of revisional authority. The deprivation ought to be corrected and compensated suitably. 44. Accordingly, the order as contained in memo no. 4878, dated 20.11.2024 passed by the respondent no. 03 in Miscellaneous Case No.04 of 2024 is hereby quashed and set aside. 45. For the foregoing reasons and discussions, this Court, in the interest of justice, deems it appropriate to pass the following directions:- i) The respondents are directed to refund, on a pro rata basis, the bid amount, for the period from 07.02.2019 to 08.06.2019 i.e. the period in which the sand ghat settlee, that is, husband of the petitioner no.1 was precluded from carrying out the mining activities in the sand ghats allotted to him. The respondents shall work out and quantify the final amount, after affording the petitioners with an opportunity of hearing and thereafter pass a reasoned and speaking order. The aforesaid exercise shall be completed within eight weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. The respondents shall work out and quantify the final amount, after affording the petitioners with an opportunity of hearing and thereafter pass a reasoned and speaking order. The aforesaid exercise shall be completed within eight weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. ii) Furthermore, the respondents are also directed to pay a compensatory interest on aforesaid quantified amount, so worked out, at a simple interest of 6% per annum. 46. With the aforesaid observations and directions this writ petition is allowed in the above terms.