THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD W.P.No.7910 of 2009, W.P.No.12257 of 2008 AND W.P.No.12908 of 2008 JUDGMENT: (Per the Ho’nble Sri Justice B.Prakash Rao) Since common questions are arising, hence at the request of the counsel on either side, these three matters are taken up together for disposal. Heard Sri C.V.R. Rudra Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Smt.N.Shobha, K.Raghuveera Reddy, K.Srinivasa Murthy and Sri S. Sudeep Reddy and learned Government Pleader for Mines and Geology appearing on behalf of the respondents herein. The petitioner in these 3 writ petitions, which are filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is a Sarpanch of Amaravathi grampanchayat, Amaravathi mandal, Guntur District. In W.P.No.7910 of 2009, the petitioner seeks a Writ of Mandamus inter alia declaring that the order of the 1st respondent dated 3-6-2008 in Memo No.7491/SPIU&SAND/2008-1 deleting Reach No.13 of Amaravati and Dharanikota villages from the lease hold rights and consequential order of the 1st respondent dated 13-8-2008 made in Memo No.11159/SPIU & SAND/2008-1 in deducting the proportionate amount payable towards Reach No.13 and further the order of the 3rd respondent of the even date viz., 13-10-2008 in letter No.708/Sand/2008 (R-12,13&14) in fixing the lease amount at Rs.73,44,000/- in favour of the 5th respondent as against the amount of Rs.2,66,40,000/- as arbitrary, illegal and without jurisdiction apart from the violative of principles of natural justice and contrary to the provisions of A.P. Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966 and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and consequently sought to set aside the impugned orders and for a direction to the respondents 1 to 4 to conduct fresh auctions in respect of Amaravati Mandal and such other necessary orders. In W.P.No.12257 of 2008 the petitioner seeks Writ of Mandamus declaring the proceedings of the 1st respondent dated 31-03-2008 made in Memo No.1976/SPIU & Sand/2008-2 in vacating the stay granted on 11-02-2008 in favour of the petitioner without a notice and hearing provided to him in respect of auction notice dated 24-01-2008 as arbitrary and illegal and violative of the orders passed by this Court in WPMP.No.21807 of 2006 in W.P.No.17406 of 2006, dated 23-08-2006, and consequently to set aside said orders dated 31-3-2008 and pass further appropriate orders. In the third Writ in W.P.No.125908 of 2008 the petitioner seeks a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 4th respondent herein in issuing the auction notice dated 24-1-2008 and conducting an auction by the 2nd respondent on 4-4-2008 in relation to Sl.No.2, Reach Nos.12, 13 and 13, Amaravathi Mandal Guntur District, for a period of two years, as arbitrary, illegal and vilative of Rule 9-B (6) of the A.P. Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966 apart from being violative of the provisions of A.P. Water, Land and Trees Act and also violative of the orders of this Court in W.P.No.18359 of 2002 and WPMP.No.21807 of 2006 in W.P.No.17406 of 2006 and the consequential orders passed by the 1st respondent dated 6- 5-2008 as illegal and set aside the same and pass such other further orders. Thus, on all the three counts the petitioner, who is a public representative and elected as Sarpanch of the Amaravathi Gram Panchayat, is virtually assailing the grant of sand quarrying lease in favour of the contesting respondent society viz., the Didgu Sand & Boat Workers Cooperative Society Ltd., Didugu village in pursuance of the notification dated 24-1-2008 by the Assistant Director of Mines and Geology in respect of Reaches Nos.12, 13 and 14, which is shown at Serial No.2 of the notification. It has been pointed out during the course of the arguments that Reach Nos.12, 13 and 14 of the said village are clubbed as single Reach. Since Reach No.13 pertains to Amaravathi and Dharanikota villages therefore the petitioner as a Sarpanch claims having a public interest therein. The crux of the main case, according to the petitioner in these three writ petitions virtually runs on the self same line pleadings for the larger interest than depriving the legitimate revenue to the State. It is stated that earlier Reaches in Amaravathi and Dharnikota villages were separately auctioned so that each of these reaches will fetch more than 4 crores. Whereas, now in view of clubbing of these Reaches, the total amount, which fetches to the grampanchayat will be far less and accordingly the grampanchayat will be denied of legitimate income. Therefore, the case of the petitioner is that the petitioner’s grampanchayat i.e., Amaravathi should be auctioned separately. The petitioner states that even though he had approached the government questioning the correctness of the said notification wherein initially a stay was granted on 11-2-2008, however, later the said stay was vacated without any notice and opportunity provided to him, and therefore, such an action on the part of the government, is totally illegal and violative of principles of natural justice. However, it has to be taken note of the fact that the said proceedings dated 31-3-2008, vacating the said orders, which has been granted earlier in favour of the petitioner, which was separately assailed in W.P.No.12257 of 2008 virtually becomes infructuous, in view of the subsequent orders passed by the Government on 3-6-2008 wherein the Reach No.13 of Amaravathi and Dharanikota villages were deleted from the purview of the grant of lease hold rights for the sand quarrying. It has been taken note in the said proceedings that pursuant to the orders of this court only directing not to conduct auction till the ground water survey is done in respect of the said Reach, the government has taken such decision deleting the Reaches of these two villages Amaravathi and Dharanikota, therefore, the said Writ in W.P.12257 of 2008 does not survive and needs no consideration as having become infructuous since the petitioner’s grievance is virtually met by such deletion. Whereas, as far as the Writ in W.P.No.12890 of 2008 is concerned, the challenge is in regard to an auction notification on the ground that the same is in contravention of the orders passed by this Court in the earlier writ petition. Since the Reach has already been deleted by the said proceedings dated 3-6-2008 as stated above, even this writ petition also does not survive and becomes infructuous. It has been contended on behalf of the petitioner that when 3 reaches were notified together and the society participated in the said auction and became highest bidder and the petitioner came to know that Reach No.13 is permitted for sand quarrying operation only after the Reach is notified by the District Collector as per the recommendation of the Ground Water Department. Before issuance of notification the Government has not therefore obtained the clearance from the Ground Water Department and the Regional Surveyer and the executive engineer and the same was brought to the notice of this Court about the said orders dated 30-4-2009 in the proceedings in another Writ in W.P.No.9632 of 2009 where the same is being insisted upon before issuance of any such notification. As far as Reach No.13 is concerned where the petitioner has got a cause to fight for has already been deleted from the notification as per the aforesaid proceedings dated 3-6-2008 on the ground that resurvey has to be conducted, and following the said directions in Writ in W.P.No.4830 of 2005, the said Reach is put to auction after surveying the above Reach and after obtaining necessary clearance from the Government Water Department and River Surveyor. Even though it has been contended by the learned Government Pleader that in view of Rule 9 (b) (6) (iii) of the G.O.Ms.No.80 dated 10-4- 2007, it is permissible to issue a notification by clubbing all such Reaches, however, the Reach No.13 has already stood deleted. Even, it has been pointed out that quarrying in respect of Reach No.13 will be permitted only after it is notified during the said period. After the said deletion of Reach No.13, the representation which has been filed by the President of the respondent Society to rationalize the bid amount for the Reaches 12 and 14 for sand quarrying and proportionate deduction towards the lease amount was considered by the Government as per its proceedings dated 13-8-2008, and consequently, the Assistant Director of Mines issued proceedings on 13-10-2008 reducing the proportionate lease amount. Therefore, it is the contention of the learned Government Pleader that once there is a deletion of one of Reaches, the Government has got ample power to re-fix the lease amount in exercise of powers under the very same Rule as quoted above. Therefore, the consequential proceedings of the authorities are perfectly legal and there cannot be any illegality to complain against. In respect of such variation by deducting the proportionate amount, the petitioner cannot make any grievance now and has no locus to question. It was pointed out that it is only on a complaint earlier seeking for de-notifying Reach No.13 on the recommendations of the Ground Water Department dated 20-2-2005, the said writ petition was disposed of taking note of the same accordingly. These directions were duly followed by the Government and the consequential action has been taken for deleting the said Reach No.13. In view of the same, the ultimate question, which now boils down for consideration is only in regard to the proportionate reduction of the lease amount by the 1st respondent government in respect of the said society in the impugned proceedings dated 13-8-2008. Having regard to the admitted situation and the factum of deletion of one out of 3 Reaches, there cannot be any dispute and the original lease amount which has been quantified, cannot possibly be termed as a valid amount for the lease for the balance too. Necessarily, there has to be a proper adjustment taking into consideration number of Reaches and it calls for a re-fixation. However, it is to be noticed that as far as the deletion is concerned, nothing illegality as such can be pointed out in the approach made by the Government, and more so, which is done only in pursuance of the orders of this Court and that too on a valid reason as pointed out in the orders in the above referred writ petition. In the circumstances, it is evident that the petitioner is not a participant in any of the auctions nor can be said to have any right, title and interest much less a claim of whatsoever nature in respect of the subject matter. The petitioner is only a sarpanch and public representative and interested in the welfare of the grampanchayat, but not otherwise to claim any personal interest for or against the Society. Nothing also has been pointed out as to how proportionate reduction in the lease amount as a result of the deletion of the de-notification of the Reach No.13 would have any effect on the grampanchayat, and in fact it would only aid to the public benefit of the each of the respective grampanchayat rather than any shade on the revenue. During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioner sought to place reliance on the Judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No.9753 of 2009 dated 10-8-2009 wherein this Court while considering an action assailing the conduct of auction in respect of certain Reaches in Krishna River without obtaining requisite sanction and approvals from the River Conservator and the Ground Water Department and permitting sand quarry operations, ultimately having found that there is no such compliance of three conditions for getting clearance, allowed the writ petition and the auction was set at naught by the Government. Having regard to the facts of the case, the situation as such having not come and especially in view of earlier directions of this Court, we do reiterate that such requirement prior to conducting of the action and more so in view of the present set of facts and circumstances, it would not in any way come to the rescue of the petitioner’s grievance. Having regard to the aforesaid reasons and facts and circumstances wherein virtually the grievance of the petitioner having already been met and nothing survives in all these writ petitions, we are of the view that except making the aforesaid allegations no other valid ground has been made out on behalf of the petitioner to assail the correctness of the impugned proceedings. Accordingly, we are of the view that the petitioner has absolutely failed to make any case to warrant exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Hence, the writ petition is accordingly liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the Writ in W.P.No.7910 of 2009 is dismissed. However in the circumstances no costs. Coming to the other two Writs in W.P.Nos.12257 and 12908 of 2008, as already stated above, both having become infructuous and no cause survives, nothing remains to be gone into. Accordingly, both the writ petitions are dismissed. No costs. _________________ B.PRAKASH RAO,J ____________________ G.BHAVANI PRASAD,J Dt: 30-04-2010 Grk THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD W.P.Nos.12257 and 12908 of 2008 And 7910 of 2009 Dated: -04-2010 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD (Judgment of the Bench delivered by Hon’ble Sri Justice B.Prakash Rao W.P.Nos.12257 and 12908 of 2008 and 7910 of 2009 Dated: -04-2010