IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT HON'BLE SRI ANIL R. DAVE, THE CHIEF JUSTICE and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT APPEAL NO : 745 of 2008 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 10/07/2008 in WP NO : 13434 OF 2008 on the file of the High Court.) Between: G. Venkateswara Rao S/o. G. Ranga Rao R/o. Gottumukkala (V) & (P) Kanchikacherla Mandal, Krishna District. ..... APPELLANT AND 1 Chirumamilla Srinivasa Rao S/o. Lakshmipathi R/o. Chandralapadu (P) & (V) Nandigama Mandal, Krishna District. 2 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by Secretary, Industries and Commerce Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 3 The District Level Sand Committee rep. by its Chairman and Joint Collector, Krishna District, Machilipatnam. 4 The Director of Mines and Geology, 8th floor, BRKR Buildings, Tank Bund Road, Hyderabad. 5 The Assistant Director of Mines and Geology, Nandigama, Krishna District. .....RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Appellant:MR.C.V.R.RUDRA PRASAD Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR INDUSTRIES & COMMERCE The Court made the following : JUDGMENT: (Per RSR, J) This writ appeal is filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent by the 5th respondent in the writ petition against the order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No. 13434 of 2008, dated 10-7-2008. The 1st respondent herein was the petitioner in the writ petition before the learned Single Judge and in the writ petition the petitioner has questioned the proceedings dated 27-5-2008 in Memo No. 15440/SPIU/SAND/2007-3, whereby and whereunder the request of the appellant herein for renewal of lease for 2nd year with 20% enhancement was considered and the lease was extended from 1-4-2008 to 31-3-2009. By notice dated 14-11-2006, the District Level Sand Committee, Krishna, Machilipatnam invited bids for granting leasehold rights of sand quarry reach of Kothapeta of Kanchikacherla Mandal of Krishna District. The appellant herein was the successful bidder in the auction held on 1- 12-2006 and he was granted lease initially from 27-12-2006 to 26-12- 2007. Accordingly a lease agreement was entered into in the prescribed form-G1. But however, after the expiry of lease, on the ground that he could not operate quarry for 38 days on account of the interim order obtained by the Gram Panchayat based on the communication addressed by the Director of Mines and Geology, the Government by the impugned order dated 27-5-2008 granted renewal for one more year with effect from 1-4-2008 to 31-3-2009. The 1st respondent herein has questioned the said order passed by the Government, mainly on the ground that when the lease was notified for a period of one year, the question of grant of renewal for second year is illegal and contrary to Rules framed under the A.P. Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966 issued under G.O.Ms.No. 1, dated 1-1-2001. The learned Single Judge by the impugned order, based on the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No. 2156 of 2005 wherein the Division Bench of this Court has considered the similar question, allowed the writ petition by setting aside the order dated 27-5- 2008 passed by the 1st respondent in the writ petition. In this appeal, it is argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that the judgment rendered by the Division Bench of this Court could not have been pressed into service by the learned Single Judge, as much as in the said judgment, the effect of clause 5 of the agreement entered into in form-G1 in terms of Rule 9-P was not considered, as such, in view of the several clauses in the agreement coupled with the conditions of auction, he is entitled to renewal for the second year also and there is no illegality in the order passed by the Government. Pursuant to acceptance of bid of the appellant herein, a land lease agreement was entered into in form-G1 and clauses, 4, 5 and 13 of the said agreement which are relevant, are extracted as under: “4. The said demised pieces of land shall be held by the lessee for the term of one year from the 27th day of December 2006 to the 26th day of December 2007 determinable as herein after provided. 5. The lessee hereby agrees, to pay during the paid term the knocked down amount along with 10% enhancement toward second year lease amount 45 days before the expiry of the 1st lease period. In respect of registered Boats-man Co-operative Society who remove and carry sand by Boats shall pay the knocked down amount in your equal quarterly instalment well before the commencement of the quarter. 13. 5 meters in the river water or 20% distance to the vagu waters should not dig the sand. 50 meters sand pits prohibited.” It is submitted by the learned counsel that in terms of clause 5 of the agreement, he is entitled for renewal on payment of 10% enhanced amount by depositing the same within 45 days before expiry of lease. In that view of the matter he was entitled for lease for the second year. We have perused the auction notice, pursuant to which bids were invited. In the auction notice the period of one year was categorically specified. Even as per the terms of clause 4 of the agreement, it is categorically stated that the lease was for a period of one year from 27-12- 2006 to 26-12-2007. Though the learned counsel has relied upon clause 5 of the agreement, the same has to be understood in cases where lease is notified for a period of two years. The said clause can be made applicable for grant of renewal subject to deposit of 10% enhanced amount over the bid amount for the 1st year. Though Clause 4 of the agreement categorically specifies the period of one year and based on clause 5 of the agreement, they cannot claim renewal as a matter of right for second year. In fact, the very same issue has also been considered by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No. 2156 of 2005. In the said judgment it was held that if the lease is notified for a period of one year, granting renewal for second year is illegal and in that view of the matter, the subject matter of the present writ petition is covered by the judgment rendered by the Division Bench of this Court as the same is in conformity with the notified tender notice and the agreement entered into. Though it is brought to our notice by the learned counsel the order passed by this Court in the earlier writ petition, namely W.P.No. 14193 of 2008, filed questioning the validity of the very same order of the Government dated 27-5-2008, but, however, in the said case, the present questions did not fall for consideration and only the question of condonation of delay by the Government in not making applications for renewal of lease was the subject matter. In that view of the matter, the order passed by the learned Single Judge is in conformity with the tender conditions. The learned Single Judge rightly relied upon the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No. 2156 of 2005 and dismissed the writ petition. For the aforesaid reasons, we do not find any ground to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge. The writ appeal is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. ______________________ ANIL R. DAVE, CJ 22nd July, 2008. __________________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J. GRR