Rajiv Ranjan Singh vs The State of Bihar - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Pat) 4746

Headnote Court Copy Facts Arguments Court observation Judicial Analysis Case Map Category Hierarchy Table of Content

2025 Supreme(Online)(Pat) 4746

PATNA HIGH COURT
Sandeep Kumar, J
Rajiv Ranjan Singh – Appellant
Versus
The State of Bihar – Respondent
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.14665 of 2025

Important Points

The court held that if environment clearance is rejected, the contract becomes impossible, warranting a refund of the security deposit.

Subject

Civil Law - Writ Jurisdiction

Act Referred

Bihar Minerals (Concession, Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation & Storage) Rules: R.18 (2), R.28, R.29(A)(1)(e)

Headnote

The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus for the refund of a security deposit due to the rejection of their proposal for environment clearance by the State Environment Impact Assessment Authority, Bihar under Bihar Minerals Rules, 2019. The court found the case became infructuous as the payment had already been made. The main issues revolved around the legality of the non-refund of the deposit and the impossibility of contract performance. The ruling was dismissal of the petition with a liberty to approach the appropriate forum for interest on the payment.

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners:Mr. Suraj Samdarshi, Advocate, Mr. Avinash Shekhar
For the Respondents:Mr. Government Advocate (08), Mr. Naresh Dikshit, Spl. PP, Mr. Brij Bihari Tiwari, Advocate, Ms. Shruti Singh, Advocate

Table of Content
1. right to refund upon rejection of environment clearance. (Para 2)
2. parties acknowledge payment has resolved the matter. (Para 3)
3. petition dismissed; liberty for further claims on interest. (Para 4)

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR ORAL ORDER

8 11-12-2025 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel for the State and the learned Spl. PP for the Mines Department.

2. This writ petition has been filed on behalf of the petitioner seeking the following relief(s):-

i) To issue an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the Respondents to refund Rs. 2,51,10,000/- deposited by the Petitioner as Security Deposit for settlement of Bhojpur Sand Ghat no. 02, considering the fact that State Environment Impact Assessment Authority, Bihar has rejected the petitioner's proposal for grant of Environment Clearance vide Ref No. 178 dated 24.04.2024;

ii) This Hon'ble Court may adjudicate and hold that since the State Environment Impact Assessment Authority, Bihar has rejected Petitioner's proposal for grant of environment clearance, which is an essential prerequisite for conducting mining activity under Rule 18 (2); Rule 28 and Rule 29(A)(1)(e) of the Bihar Minerals (Concession, Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation & Storage) Rules, 2019, the petitioner is entitled for refund of Rs. 2,51,10,000/-deposited as Security Deposit for settlement of Bhojpur Sand Ghat no.

02;

iii) This Hon'ble Court may further adjudicate and hold that since the State Environment Impact Assessment Authority, Bihar, has rejected petitioner's proposal for grant of environment clearance for Bhojpur Sand Ghat no. 02, the performance of contract arising out of letter of intent contained in letter no. 4309 dated Alishal 19.10.2022 and in principal approval contained in letter no. 4382 dated 28.10.2022 has become impossible on the part of the petitioner leading to frustration of contract and therefore the petitioner is entitled to refund of security deposit of Rs. 2,51,10,000/- deposited for settlement of Bhojpur Sand Ghat no. 02;

iv) This Hon'ble Court may further adjudicate and hold that petitioner cannot be penalised for non-issuance of environment clearance by State Environment Impact Assessment Authority, Bihar for carrying on mining activity;

v) This Hon'ble Court may further adjudicate and hold that the action of the Respondents in not refunding the security deposit to the petitioner is highly illegal, arbitrary and unreasonable.

3. The learned counsels for the parties have submitted that the payment has been made to the petitioner and the instant writ petition has become infructuous.

4. In that view of the matter, this application is dismissed as infructuous with liberty to the petitioner to approach the appropriate forum for payment of interest.

(Sandeep Kumar, J)