The forfeiture of earnest money for failure to increase the bid price by a sole bidder was invalid due to a vague show cause notice and denial of personal hearing, violating principles of natural justice.

C.A.V. JUDGMENT

Date : 11-12-2025

Heard Mr. Abhinav Shrivastava, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel for the State and Mr. Naresh Dikshit, learned Special Public Prosecutor for the Mining Department.

2. The instant writ petition has been preferred for the following reliefs:

(i) To hold and declare that, in the terms of advt. dated 04/03/2024 (Annexure P/1) and / or bid documents, (viz financial bid/technical bid), it was not obligatory for the single bidder / Petitioner, to make at least one call (bid), above the minimum reserve price, and to raise the minimum reserve (bid) price at least by 10% of the minimum reserve price in case of single bidder, as this would be contrary to the fundamental concept of minimum reserve price, in the auction process;

(ii) To issue an appropriate writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing of Order dated 19/12/2024, passed by the Court of Mines Commissioner (Annexure P/10) whereby and whereunder the Appellate Authority/Court of Mines Commissioner (Respondent No. 2) has rejected the Appeal of the Petitioner, directed against the order of the District Collector, Rohtas, Sasaram (Respondent No.3) of forfeiting Earnest Money Deposit of Rs.3,27,37,500/- (Three Crore Twenty Seven Lacs Thirty Seven Thousand Five Hundred Only) which was deposited by the Petitioner, as earnest money, in pursuance to the advt. dated 04/03/2024 (Annexure-P/1);

(iii) To issue an appropriate writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing of Order dated 11/06/2024, vide Memo No.949, issued by the District Collector, Rohtas, Sasaram, (Annexure P/7) forfeiting Earnest Money Deposit of Rs. 3,27,37,500/- (Three Crore Twenty Seven Lacs Thirty Seven Thousand Five Hundred Only) which was deposited by the Petitioner, as earnest money, in pursuance to the advt. dated 04/03/2024 (Annexure – P/1);

(iv) To issue an appropriate writ in the nature of mandamus giving direction to the concerned authorities to release the forfeited Earnest Money Deposit of Rs.3,27,37,500/- in favour of the Petitioner, which was deposited by him, as earnest money, in pursuance to the advt. dated 04/03/2024 (Annexure-P/1).”

3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner, namely, M/s Hollyhock Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd. is a registered company, and it is acting through the petitioner namely, Mrinal Kumar. The Mines and Geology Department of District Rohtas, Sasaram, vide its advertisement dated 04.03.2024, invited bids through tender, for sand ghats and blocks in the Sone river, Balughat-Rohtas, Sone Block-No. 9B, in accordance with the Bihar Sand Mining Policy , 2019, and the Bihar Minerals (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation, and Storage) Rules, 2019.

3.1. Pertinently, this was the third attempt, since earlier the respondent department had failed to get the appropriate number of bidders for the aforesaid ghats. The present petitioner also participated in the auction process in response to the short notice dated 04.03.2024 and in connection thereto had deposited the earnest money of Rs. 3,27,37,500/- along with the application fee. The leasing of the sand ghats was carried out through an e-auction tendering process, among bidders whose technical bids satisfied the eligibility criteria specified in the tender documents. The petitioner successfully qualified in the technical bid and thereafter proceeded with the submission of the financial bid / e-auction bid and logged-in using the User ID provided by Beltron and had uploaded all the required documents for the e-auction which was held on 29.04.2024.

3.2. The petitioner logged-in and parti