Achintya Malla Bujor Barua, J.

Heard Mr. AHMR Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. D Nath, learned Addl. Senior Govt. Advocate, appearing for the State respondents.

2. The petitioners had participated in a tender process pursuant to an NIT dated 29-08-2013, for settlement of the Katakhal Sand Mining Contract Unit-2. In the said tender process, the petitioner having quoted an amount of Rs. 84,00,000/-, was the highest bidder. The petitioner had also deposited the required earnest money amounting to Rs. 4,20,000/- for the purpose of participating in the tender process. Prior to the said NIT, an earlier NIT dated 04-10-2013 was also floated in respect of the same sand Mahal but it could not be brought to its logical end. In the earlier NIT one Himangshu Roy had quoted an amount of Rs. 45,00,000/ . It is also stated that the value of the mahal in the earlier NIT was Rs. 40,00,000/-.

3. Situated thus, the said Himangshu Roy had preferred a writ petition before this Court being WP(C) No.7262/2013 which was disposed of by order dated 19-06-2014, wherein this Court by taking into consideration the rate of Rs. 45,00,000/- submitted by Himangshu Roy in and also the amount of Rs. 84,00,000/- quoted by the present petitioner in the subsequent tender had directed that the settling authority to settle the mahal for the highest bidder in accordance with law. As the said order was not duly complied, the present petitioner preferred another writ petition being WP(C) No. 4749/2014, which was disposed of by order dated 23-09-2014 by directing the respondent authorities to give settlement of Katakhal Sand Mining Contract Unit-2 on or before 07-10-2014 to the highest bidder on or before 07-10-2014.

4. But as nothing was done, the petitioner had preferred another writ petition being WP(C) No.2526/2015 wherein, order dated 06-05-2015 was passed directing the respondent authorities to dispose of the representation dated 09-03-2015 which was submitted by the petitioner for refund of the earnest money.

5. The said representation of the petitioner dated 09-03-2015 was given its due consideration by the respondent authorities and accordingly, order dated 14-07-2015 was passed. The said order dated 04-07-2015 provides that as the petitioner is a defaulter in respect of another settlement made in his favour in respect of Katakhal Sand Mining Contract Unit-3, therefore, his bid submitted pursuant to the NIT dated 21-11-2013 be revoked along with forfeiture of the earnest money amounting to Rs. 4,20,000/-. The said order of the PCCF by which the bid of the petitioner pursuant to the NIT dated 21-11-2013 was revoked and the forfeiture of the earnest money amounting to Rs. 4,20,000/- is being assailed in this writ petition.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that while operating the earlier sand mahal being Katakhal Sand Mining Contract Unit-3, the petitioner for some inexplicable reason and for no fault of his own, could not operate the mahal to its full. It is stated by the petitioner that on the other hand, the petitioner had paid 2 quarterly kist money, although in his view he was not required to pay the same. Accordingly, the petitioner projects that he is not a defaulter and, therefore, order dated 04-07-2015, by which his bid was revoked and earnest money forfeited was not sustainable.

7. On the other hand, Mr. D Nath, learned Govt. Advocate by referring to Rule 35(5) of the Assam Mines and Minerals Concession Rules, 2013 in short 2013 contends that as the petitioner was found to be in arrears in respect of some other settlement, the respondent authorities have the authority to revoke the subsequent bid of the petitioner as well as forfeit the earnest money deposited by him. Rule 35(5) of the 2013 Rules reads as under:

"(5) No person, who is a defaulter of any mining dues in respect of any mineral concession granted in the past or any other current mineral concession shall be eligible to participate i