JUDGMENT

V. GOPALA GOWDA, C.J. - Since both the writ petitions involve similar questions of fact and law, they are taken up together for analogous hearing and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

2. The petitioners, who are licensees for the sairat quarries, being aggrieved by the lease agreement cancellation orders dated 13.05.2011 passed by the Tahasildar, Dharmasala under Annexures 5 & 4 respectively, have prayed this Court to :

(a) issue appropriate writ/writs against the opp. party;

(b) quash the orders dated 13.05.2011 .vide Annexures-5 & 4: and

(c) direct the opposite party not to intervene in the operation right of the petitioners as per the terms of the lease agreements.

Though the petitioners in both the cases have sought for quashing the order under Annexures-5 & 4 respectively, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners during the course of hearing, filed memos indicating that the petitioners do not want to press the prayers made in these writ petitions and they only pray for issuance of a direction to the opposite party-Tahasildar, Dharmasala to refund the bid amount as well as the expenditure incurred by them towards purchase of stamp duty and payment of registration charges of the agreements in both the cases along with interest.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners indicates the expenditures said to have been incurred by the petitioners in both the case are as follows:

In W.P.(C) No.16061 of 2011

Rs. 19,40,000/- deposited towards bid amount

Rs. 97,000/- Purchase of stamp duty

Rs. 39,060/- expended towards Registration fees

In total the petitioner has incurred an expenditure of Rs. 20,76,060/-.

In W.P.(C) No.16062 of 2011

Rs. 5,00,000/- deposited towards bid amount

Rs. 25,000/- Purchase of stamp duty

Rs. 10,260/- expended towards Registration fees

Similarly, the petitioner in second case has expended Rs. 5,35,260/-for operation of the sairat in question.

4. The lease agreements in both the cases were cancelled on the ground of not obtaining the forest clearance as the sairats in question are situated within forest land, which finds place in the DLC report. Therefore, Section 2(c) of the Conservation of Forest Act, 1980 is attracted. Such clearance was not obtained by the petitioners as that was not the precondition in the tender auction notice in both the cases. At any rate, it is not the statutory duty on the part of the petitioner-bidders to obtain the forest clearance as the opposite party had identified the sairats in question for the purpose of granting lease-hold right by holding public auction in which the petitioners participated and became the highest bidders and no fault can be attributed to the petitioners in not obtaining the forest clearance for the purpose of giving effect to the lease agreements. Therefore, learned counsel for the petitioners without pressing for quashing of the orders of cancellation of the lease agreements now requests this Court to issue a writ of mandamus to the opposite party for refund of the aforesaid money expended by them as they do not want to challenge the cancellation of the lease agreements in both the cases and are not interested to carry on quarrying of the sairats in question as it is already delayed. Accordingly, they request this Court for grant of relief stated supra.

4. Mr. Panda, learned Addl. Government Advocate appearing for the State-opposite party vehemently opposes the prayer sought for by the petitioners in the memos filed in Court today in these proceedings as there is no prayer in this regard in the writ petitions and the petitioners are not entitled to such relief. He further submits that the petitioners were required to obtain forest clearance for the purpose of executing the lease agreements to extract minerals from the sairats in question. Non-obtaining of forest clearance is the valid reason for cancellation of the lease agreements. Therefore, the petitioners are not entitled to get refund of the stamp duty spent on purchase of st