Harish Kumar, J. – Heard Mr. Gautam Kumar Kejriwal, learned counsel for the petitioners in all the batch cases and Mr. Suraj Samdarshi, learned counsel for the petitioners in C.W.J.C. No. 8137 of 2023 and C.W.J.C. No. 9768 of 2023. Mr. Naresh Dikshit, learned Special P.P. for the Mines, duly assisted by the Mrs. Kalpana, appears in all the cases.

2. Since in each of these cases, the issue involved and the relief prayed by the petitioners is identical, hence the same has been taken up together for analogous hearing and disposal with the consent of all the parties.

3. The petitioners, who have been engaged as contractor to carry out Mining activities on behalf of the Bihar State Mining Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Corporation’) wherein the Corporation is a concessionaire/ lease holder as defined under Rule 2(XVII) of the Bihar Minerals (Concession, Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation and Storage) Rules, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules, 2019 being aggrieved by the order(s) issued by the Chief Executive Officer, Bihar State Mining Corporation Limited, Patna approached before this Court seeking quashing of the order whereby the petitioners have been saddled with penalties under Rule 56 of the Rules, 2019 along with a direction debarring the petitioners from participating in the auction process for sand ghats in the State of Bihar till such payment is made. The writ petitioners also prayed for a direction upon the Corporation to refund the whole of the security deposit made by the petitioners in course of completion of formalities while executing the agreement, which has been adjusted against the aforesaid penalty and also for refund of the remaining amount recovered from the petitioners in the name of aforesaid penalty.

4. The petitioners having been declared successful bidder, awarded the contract for operation of different sand ghats till 31.03.2022 or till further orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Bihar and Ors. vs. Pawan Kumar and Others (Civil Appeal Nos. 3661-3662 of 2020).

5. After having completed all the paraphernalia, including the payment of auction amount in installment, execution of agreement and its registration of payment of stamp duty, payment of Income tax etc. with an undertaking to strictly observe the terms and conditions of approved Mining plan and environmental clearance, the respondent Corporation issued work order(s) in favour of the petitioners in connection with the contract awarded for mining operations. The engagement of the petitioners as contractors was to carry out mining operations in terms of the provisions of Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act, 1957’), the Corporation had engaged the petitioners to extract minerals from the sand ghat identified by the corporation and to sell/supply the same to the purchasers/customers. The quantity of sand exist in the sand ghat was already assessed by the respondent Corporation and the minimum reserve price of such stock of sand was indicated in the auction notice. The auction amount was the actual cost of minerals already recovered by the Corporation from the petitioners. As per the relevant terms of the tender notice, especially Clause 24 thereof it prescribes that every vehicle (including boat) engaged in transportation of sand shall have to be registered with the respondent Department of Mines and Geology. All such vehicles, which are registered with the Department would have to install GPS (which can be communicated with the monitoring system of the Department) so that its movement can be monitored by the department. Further Clause 31(i) deals with obligation to the contractor to issue E Challan to the driver of the vehicle for transportation of sand.

6. Thus, the role and obligation of the petitioners were confined to the sale of sand to a purchaser, who would be allowed to collect such sand from the petitioners’ sandghats in a vehicl