THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY Writ Petition No.18654 of 2008 Dated 22nd June, 2011 Between: M/s.The Krishna Country Canal Boat Workers …Petitioner And The District Level Committee (Sand Auctions), Krishna District, Machilipatnam, rep.by its Member Convenor and another …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri C.V.R.Durga Prasad Counsel for respondents: AGP for Mines & Geology The Court made the following: ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in not granting 10% concession in favour of the petitioner as envisaged in G.O.Ms.No.84, dated 10.04.2007, in respect of Ibrahimpatnam Sand Reach, Krishna District as illegal and arbitrary. Even though the Government policy evolved in G.O.Ms.No.84, dated 10.04.2007, provided for 10% concession in the lease amount in favour of registered boatsmen cooperative societies, the petitioner, which participated in the auction and emerged as highest bidder, was denied the said benefit on the sole ground that it has become highest bidder. A similar issue fell for consideration of this Court in W.P.No.3907 of 2003, which was disposed of by this Court by order, dated 11.07.2003, wherein it is held as under: “The petitioner participated in the auction held for the purpose of grant of leasehold rights in respect of the reach and for the period referred to above. The only ground on which the petitioner is denied the benefit of 10% concession on the highest bid is, that the petitioner itself had emerged as the highest bidder. It may be true that the provision is intended to help the registered Boatsmen Cooperative Societies which may otherwise be not in a position to compete with other agencies or individuals. But there is nothing in this Rule or any other provision in the Rules to indicate that once such a society participates in the auction or where it emerges as the highest bidder, it shall not be entitled for the benefit of 10% concession. The language employed to Rule 9-B(3) is absolute and does not leave any scope for restricting the extension of benefit.” The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Mines and Geology appearing for the respondents has not disputed that the ratio laid down in the above judgment squarely applies to this case. In view of the same, the writ petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to extend 10% concession in favour of the petitioner as envisaged in G.O.Ms.No.84, Industries & Commerce Department, dated 10.04.2007. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.24275 of 2008 is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 22nd June, 2011 VGB