JUDGMENT :

SUNIL B. SHUKRE, J.

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of learned counsel for the respective parties.

2. Learned AGP has sought time to obtain necessary instructions following the order passed by this Court on 19th August 2023. In support, he has tendered across the bar a communication dated 22nd August 2023, which is taken on record and marked as ‘Document-A’.

3. In normal course, we would have granted the request as made in the communication, Document-A, which seeks time of eight weeks for obtaining necessary instructions. But having regard to the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, we are of the view that we would be doing injustice to the original petitioners, if we accede to such a request made on behalf of the State Government.

4. The peculiarity of these two review petitions arise mainly from certain facts. The order sought to be reviewed is a common order and it is passed in three Writ Petitions namely Writ Petition No. 12380, Writ Petition No. 13323 and Writ Petition (St) No. 29331 all filed in the year 2016. These three petitions sought enforcement of the order dated 9th September 2014 passed by the Hon’ble Minister of State for Revenue, thereby directing the authorities of the State to refund the amounts deposited by the three petitioners towards taking on lease three different sand ghats and it was the contention of the petitioners that due to some intervening circumstances and factors beyond their control, they were not able to work the sand ghats to their fullest capacity and before the sand ghats could be excavated fully, their lease came to an end and therefore, the proportionate amounts which these petitioners had deposited were liable to be refunded to the petitioners.

5. This contention of the petitioners was accepted by the then Hon’ble Minister of State for Revenue and therefore, by the order passed on 9th September 2014, he directed the concerned State authorities to calculate the amounts due and payable to these petitioners and release the same to them within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of his order. This order passed by the then Hon’ble Minister of State for Revenue was not implemented by the State authorities and therefore, the petitioners were compelled to approach this Court seeking a mandamus to the State authorities for implementation of the said order dated 9th September 2014. This Court, after hearing both sides found substance in these petitions and therefore, allowed the petitions and directed the authorities to calculate the amounts payable to the petitioners and release the same within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of order of the High Court. This order came to be passed by this Court on 28th November 2017. It was, therefore, expected from the State authorities to implement the order. But, the order was not implemented and two original petitioners who have filed Writ Petition No. 12380 of 2016 and Writ Petition No. 13323 of 2016 have now filed under compulsion two separate contempt petitions against the said authorities.

6. There is one more fact, which is relevant here. The first order passed by the then Hon’ble Minister on 9th September 2014 was recalled and reviewed by another Hon’ble Minister by passing an order dated 2nd July 2019, and this was done by him even when the order dated 28th November 2017 of this Court was staring in the face of the State authorities. As, if this was not enough, the State authorities even acted arbitrarily in the matter. This can be seen from the treatment given to the third petitioner. So, further enquiry was made by us. As informed by the learned counsel for the aforestated two petitioners, it appears that there was one more petitioner who had filed Writ Petition (St) No. 29331 of 2016 and who was also the beneficiary of the order dated 28th November 2017. But, he is not before us today.

7. Upon enquiry by us, learned counsel for the original petitioners i