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. 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 r