IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF JUNE, TWO THOUSAND TEN PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.5765 of 2010 Between: N. Duryodhana … Petitioner And The Govt., of A.P., rep., by its Secretary, Dept., of Mines & Geology, Secretariat, Hyderabad & others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri Nagesh Bheemapaka Counsel for respondents 1-4: GP for Mines & Geology This Court made the following: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.5765 of 2010 ORDER:- This writ petition is filed of a Mandamus to declare the action of respondent Nos.1 to 4 in permitting respondent No.6 to quarry sand in Karajada Reach of Srikakulam Rural Mandal, Srikakulam District as illegal and contrary to the provisions of the A.P. Water, Land and Trees Act, 2002 and the A.P. Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966. Having regard to the serious allegations made in the affidavit on the status of respondent No.6, who was granted the mining lease, this Court called for a report from respondent No.4, who accordingly submitted his report in the form of an affidavit, wherein he inter alia stated as under: “The auction for sand reach of Karajada has been conducted by the Assistant Director, Mines and Geology, Srikakulam on 22.07.2009. The 6th respondent prior to his appointment as Village Revenue Officer has participated one of the 17 participants for the Karajada sand reach. The bid was knocked down in his favour for Rs.2,70,00,000/- and it was confirmed by the District Collector, Srikakulam vide Progs.Rc.No.2164/Q/2009, dated 26.07.2009. Subsequently, the 6th respondent was appointed as Village Revenue Officer, Ravivalasa (V) of Tekkali (M) vide this office Progs.Rc.No.2386/2008/A2 dated 11.08.2009. It is clearly evident that Sri T. Syam Sundara Rao is not an employee as on the date of participation of auction and also confirmation of lease i.e., 26.07.2009 by the District Collector, Srikakulam. Later, he has applied for transfer of lease hold rights in favour of his wife Tamminena Rajeswari and for renewal of the lease for period one year beyond 31.03.2010 to the Government through 2nd respondent since he was appointed as Village Revenue Officer. The Director of Mines and Geology, A.P. Hyderabad has directed him to obtain permission from the appropriate authority under whom he has been employed to get the lease transferred since this attracts Rule 9(6) and (10) of APCS Conduct Rules, 1964 and accordingly he applied for grant of permission to get the lease transferred in favour of his wife Tammineni Rajeswari on 15.03.2010. In this office Rc.No.765/2010/A2, dated 18.03.2010 the application of the individual has been submitted the Principal Secretary to Government Revenue (V.O.) Department, A.P. Secretariat, Hyderabad through the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, A.P., Hyderabad for taking further action in the matter and orders in this regard are awaited. It is further submitted that the individual has not been appointed as Personal Secretary to 5th respondent.” While the contents of the report reproduced above show that the lease was granted in favour of respondent No.6 prior to his appointment as Village Revenue Officer, he was nevertheless continued to be as a lessee till 31.03.2010 on the purported ground that his wife sought for transfer of lease in her favour. This action on the part of the official respondents is seriously objectionable. With his appointment as Village Administrative Officer, respondent No.6 has become a public servant and it is wholly impermissible to continue him as a lessee. Respondent Nos.1 to 4 ought to have been diligent in ensuring that lease in favour of respondent No.6 is put an end to immediately on the latter’s appointment to Government service. Pendency of the application filed by respondent No.6 for permission to transfer the lease does not offer a legitimate ground to continue respondent No.6 as lessee of a sand contract. In ordinary course, this lapse on the part of respondent No.4 would have been viewed seriously by this Court. However, having regard to the fact that renewal in favour of either respondent No.6 or his wife has not been made, this Court deems it appropriate to close the issue with the hope that in future respondent Nos.1 to 4 would act with diligence and circumspection. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, WPMP.No.7430 of 2010 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. _____________________________ C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 02.06.2010 ES