IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION No: 7715 of 2004 Between: The Dharanikota Sand & Ferry Boat Workers Cooperative Society Limited, Dharanikota, Amaravathi Mandal, Guntur District. Through its President N.Ch. Subba Rao S/o. Ramaiah, aged 55 years, R/o. Dharanikota Village, Amaravathi Mandal, Guntur District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Chairman, Zilla Parishad/ Chairman, District Level Committee, for Sand Auctions, Guntur. 2 District Panchayat Officer/Convenor District Level Committee of Sand Auctions, Guntur. 3 The District Collector, Guntur District. Guntur. 4 G. Haribabu S/o. G. Venkiatappaiah R/o. Kothapalem Village, Machavarm Mandal, Guntur District. .....RESPONDENTS 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 a Writ of Mandamus, or any other appropriate Writ, order or direction, declaring the action of the respondents 1 to 3 in permitting the 4th respondent to conduct sand quarrying operations contrary to the provisions contained in G.O.Ms.No.1 dt. 1-1-2001 and also allowing the 4th respondent to quarry sand from unauthorized ramps by means of proclaimers and heavy machinery as being illegal without jurisdiction and consequently direct the respondents 1 to 3 forthwith stop the illegal quarrying operations by the 4th respondent from unauthorized ramps and transporting the sand. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.K.RAGHUVEER REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.DANTU.SRINIVAS The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No. 7715 of 2004 O R D E R : This writ petition is filed seeking a declaration that the alleged action of the respondents 1 to 3 in permitting the fourth respondent to conduct sand quarrying operations contrary to provisions contained in G.O.Ms.No.1 dated 01-01-2001 is arbitrary and illegal. Admittedly, the fourth respondent was granted lease in respect of Reach No.13 for one year vide proceedings of the third respondent dated 19-01-2004. Since the period of lease expired long back, nothing survives for adjudication on merits. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as infrucutous. No costs. ______________ G. ROHINI, J Date: 24-11-2008 KLP