The main legal point established in the judgment is that once an exercise has been completed, the principles of promissory estoppel and legitimate expectation prevent a turning around of decisions, and whimsical actions by the department leading to loss of revenue are not justified.

JYOTI SARAN, J.

1. Heard Mr. Farooq Ahmad Khan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, Mr. Devendra Kumar Sinha, learned Additional Advocate General No. 2 representing the Mining Department.

2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 30.12.2014 issued under the signature of Joint Secretary-cum-Director, Mines and Geology Department, Government of Bihar, a copy of which is placed at Annexure-1 to the writ petition whereby while responding to the recommendation dated 26.11.2014 of the District Magistrate-cum-Collector, Madhubani for settlement of Balughat at Madhubani with the petitioner, a direction has been issued to hold a fresh auction in the interest of Government revenue.

3. It is the argument of Mr. Khan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that it is after three round of exercise undertaken by the respondent-Department that finally the technical bid of the petitioner was found to be the most appropriate and since it was above the reserve Jama hence the Collector, Madhubani while discussing the matter in detail, has recommended for settlement in his favour vide letter dated 26.11.2014 (Annexure-10) and with a reminder on 27.12.2014 placed at Annexure-11 but it has been responded to by the impugned order.

4. He submits that in the first round there was no tenderer responding to the notice which resulted in second round tender in which it was the petitioner alone who applied and thus while maintaining the offer made by petitioner that the department went for a third tender in which one more person, namely, Tej Narain Yadav only applied, however since the technical bid of said Tej Narain Yadav was rejected, it left the petitioner alone in the contest.

5. It is submitted that since there remained only one contestant in the contest that the District Magistrate, Madhubani sought instruction from the headquarter and vide letter dated 17.11.2014 of the Headquarters, the District Magistrate was required to complete the formalities following which the Tender Committee held its meeting on 26.11.2014 when the financial bid of the petitioner was opened and was found at Rs. 78,70,000/- i.e. above the reserve Jama which was fixed at Rs. 78,67,200/-. The Tender Committee consisting of the Mining Officer, Madhubani, Commercial Tax Officer, Madhubani, Senior Deputy Collector (Revenue), Madhubani, the Additional Superintendent of Police, Madhubani and the Collector, Madhubani recommended for settlement of Balughat in favour of the petitioner, a copy of which is placed at Annexure-9 and it is following such recommendation that the Collector after discussing the entire matter has given his recommendation in favour of the petitioner on 26.11.2014 placed at Annexure-10 which recommendation was reiterated in his letter dated 27.12.2014 placed at Annexure-11. He submits that although such exercise was undertaken after approval by the headquarters, yet when the recommendation of the Collector reached the Joint Secretary –cum- Director for his approval that he has chosen to reject the same and directed for fresh order.

6. Mr. Khan learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the exercise having been completed it is no more open for the respondents to set at naught the exercise and the decision of the Tender Committee and the recommendation of the District Magistrate would be conclusive and binding. Learned counsel has relied upon a decision of this Court reported in State of Bihar vs. P.E.C. Limited, 2004 (3) PLJR 741 paragraph 10 to submit that once the technical bid of the petitioner was opened and was found above the reserve Jama there was no turning around for the respondents.

7. Mr. Khan has also referred to a Bench decision of this Court reported in M/s. Vijay Raj Mewar Construction Co. Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Bihar, 2006 (3) PLJR 503 paragraph 6 and Mandar Madhusudan Bahudhandhi Swablambi Sahkari Samitee Ltd. vs. State of Bihar, 2007 (2) PLJR 27 paragraph-10 to submit that once the ex