IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 26930 of 2008 Between: Choppella Venkateswara Rao S/o. Subba Rao R/o. Kommaraju Lanka, Ravulapalem Mandal, East Godavari District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The District Collector, East Godavari District at Kakinada. 2 The Joint Collector, East Godavari District at Kakinada. 3 The Assistant Director of Mines and Geology, Rajahmundry, East Godavari District. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Assistant Director-3rd respondent in publishing Notification vide auction notice No.5679/sand/2008 dated 27.11.2008 quoting abnormal rates without reducing minimum upset price proportionately in respect of reaches 10 and 42 when compared to the earlier notification dated 03.11.2008 issued by the Joint Collector-2nd respondent and without having jurisdiction in issuing tender Notification contrary to the provisions of 9H(1) of G.O.Ms.No.84, Industries and Commerce dated 10.04.2007 as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.N.RAVI PRASAD Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR MINES AND GEOLOGY THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.26930 of 2008 ORDER: Learned Government Pleader for Industries would place before this Court a statement showing the sand reaches auctioned on 15-12-2008. A perusal thereof would show that, in so far as reach Nos.1, 2, 6, 10, 11 12 and 13 are concerned, the knocked down amounts are higher than the upset price. Sri N.Vidya Prasad, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, would contend that the very fact that, from out of these seven reaches, three have been given in favour of the boatsmen cooperative societies would reveal that the upset price was fixed on the higher side since, under Rule 9(C) of the Andhra Pradesh Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966 (for short ‘the Rules’), the boatsmen cooperative societies are entitled for 10% concession. The concession of 10%, which boatsmen cooperative societies are entitled to, under Rule 9(C) of the Rules, is in every case where a bid is received and this concession is statutorily prescribed under the Rules. The mere fact that bids were knocked down in favour of three Cooperative Societies would not render submission of such bids illegal. Sri N.Vidya Prasad, Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, would further submit that, under Rule 9(H), the auctioning authority is the Joint Collector and that the notification impugned in this writ petition has been issued by the Assistant Director of Mines and Geology. Under Rule 9(D)(1) of the Rules, where an area is to be leased out by Sealed Tender-cum-Auction for sand quarrying, the Assistant Director of Mines and Geology is empowered to issue a notice in Form ‘S1’ by publishing it in two State level Newspapers. Rule 9(H) prescribes the auctioning, confirming and appellate authorities, and for bids where the minimum amount is more than Rs.5.00 lakhs, the Joint Collector is the auctioning authority. The distinction between the authorities under Rule 9(D) and Rule 9(H) is obvious. While the auction notice is required to be given by the Assistant Director, the authority to conduct the auction, where the minimum bid is above Rs.5.00 lakhs, is the Joint Collector. It is not even the case of the petitioner that the auction was conducted by an authority lower in rank than that of the Joint Collector. I see no reason, at this stage, to interdict the auction held under the impugned notification. Sri N.Vidya Prasad, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, would also point out certain infirmities in the fresh tender notice dated 16-12-2008. Since, however, no challenge is made to the fresh tender notice in this writ petition and the remedy, if any, is to file a writ petition separately challenging it, I see no justification in examining the validity of the fresh tender notice in the present writ petition. Leaving it open to the petitioner to challenge the fresh tender notice dated 16-12-2008, if he so desires, the writ petition is dismissed. However, in the circumstances, without costs. RAMESH RANGANATHAN,J Dt:19-12-2008 usd