Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD, J., NAVNEET KUMAR, J.
Mahadev Enclave Pvt. Ltd – Appellant
Versus
State of Jharkhand – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
1. In pursuant to the order dated 04.02.2025, Mr. Jitendra Singh at present holding the post of Secretary, Mines & Geology, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi, is present.
2. The instant writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:-
(i) An appropriate writ, order or direction for quashing of the letter no.1408/M dated 29.11.2016 issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Godda, whereby the petitioner was given two days time to show cause as to why the security deposit as well as the advance deposited by the petitioner be not forfeited and the Sand Ghat allotted to the petitioner be not cancelled.
(ii) For issuance of further writ, order or direction restraining the respondents from forfeiting the security deposit as well as the advance amount deposited by the petitioner in respect of Sand Ghat settled in his favour.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the present writ petition may be disposed of in terms of the order dated 07.08.2023 passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.(C) No.3387 of 2022 and other analogous cases, wherein, the direction has been passed upon the respondent no.2, Director of Mines & Geology, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi,
Judicial consistency demands adherence to prior rulings, ensuring prompt resolution of claims related to security deposits and sand ghat allotments.
Petitioners entitled to seek refund of Earnest Money and Security Deposit due to State's alleged delays in environmental clearance processing.
The government's decision must conform to the principles of reasonableness and be free from arbitrariness, bias, and mala-fides. The order of forfeiture of security deposit cannot be passed in violat....
The authority must provide adequate reasons for the complete forfeiture of a security deposit, especially when a lesser penalty has been imposed and already paid.
Writ petitions are not maintainable in contractual disputes when an alternate remedy exists in civil court, as per the terms of the contract.
The court held that if environment clearance is rejected, the contract becomes impossible, warranting a refund of the security deposit.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
