2026:CGHC:4035-DB NAFR Digitally signed by INDRAJEET INDRAJEET SAHU SAHU Date: HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

2026.01.28

19:01:38 +0530 WPC No. 310 of 2026

1 - M/s Sunil Kumar Patel (Amdiha Sand Mine) Through Prop. Sunil Kumar Patel, S/o Panchram Patel, Aged About 45 Years, Address - H. No. 105, Bore Raigarh, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh.

... Petitioner(s)

Versus

1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Director, Directorate of Geology And Mining, Indravati Bhawan Nava Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.

2 - The Member Secretary State Level Expert Marketing Committee, Ministry of Environment, Forest, And Climate Change, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.

3 - Mining Officer (Collector Office) Mining Department Jashpur District Jashpur Chhattisgarh.

4 - The Collector Jashpur District Jashpur Chhattisgarh.

... Respondent(s)

For Petitioner : Shri Shubham Tripathi, Advocate.

For State : Shri P.K. Bhaduri, Dy. Advocate General.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Ramesh Sinha, CJ Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J

Order on Board

23.01.2026.

Per, Ramesh Sinha, CJ .

1 The petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking following relief/prayer:

“10.1. That, the Hon’ble Court may kindly allow the petition and direct the respondent No.1 to return the security deposit of the petitioner amounting to Rs. 3,00,000/- along with the interest of

12% from the date of filing of rejection of the tender.

10.2. That, the respondents may kindly be directed to decide the representations of the petitioner, in the interest of justice.

10.3 Any other relief which deemed fit and proper may also be issued looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and looking to the interest of the petitioner.”

2 Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was allotted the work of sand minding at IB River Mineral Ordinary Sand Mine on Khasra No.1, Area 3.00 Hect. at village Baluvabahar Amdiha, Tehsil Farsabahar vide order 05.11.2019. In compliance of the conditions of the work order, the petitioner deposited the security amount of Rs.3,00,000/- by way of bank guarantee bearing bank guarantee No.9425IPEBG190009 on 13.11.2019. After submission of bank guarantee, the respondent authority have changed the place of mining and rejected the allotment order dated 05.11.2019 issued in favour of the petitioner vide order dated 04.06.2021 and passed the order of rejection of Letter of Intent (in short, LOI) on 09.11.2023. The petitioner made his representation to the respondent authorities for refund of his security deposit but the said amount has not been refunded till date despite making repeated representations which constrains the petitioner to file the present writ petition for the aforesaid reliefs. He would further submit that non refund of the amount is arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice. The petitioner is in huge financial loss as he is a small contractor Therefore, the respondent authorities may be directed to refund the security deposit of the petitioner along with accrued interest.

3 On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner and have submitted that the petitioner has only prayed for refund of his security deposit, however, the order dated 09.11.2023 by which his work order has been cancelled and security deposit is ordered to be forfeited, have not been challenged. Without challenging the impugned order, the security deposit cannot be refunded. Further, the order has been passed on 09.11.2023 and the petitioner has filed this petition on 14.01.2026 which is after about 2 years and therefore the petition suffers from delay and laches also and no relief can be granted to the petitioner in the present writ petition.

4 We have heard the counsel for the parties and perused the material annexed with the writ petition.

5 It is not disputed by the counsel for the petitioner that he has not challenged the order dated