HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA WRIT PETITION No. 13218 OF 2011 . DATED 29th April, 2011. BETWEEN K.Venka Goud …Petitioner And The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Secretary, Industries and Commerce Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and ors. ….Respondents. HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA WRIT PETITION No. 13218 of 2011 ORDER: The State Government-first respondent vide Memo No.6499/SPIU & SAND/2009-1 dated 15.5.2009 have permitted the Director of Mines & Geology, Hyderabad, the second respondent for issuance of temporary permits in favour of M/s.Andhra Pradesh Mineral Development Corporation Limited, the fourth respondent, to lift the ordinary sand at Manjeera river situated at the sand reach at Sunkini village of Koragiri Mandal in Nizambad District, for a period of sixty days subject to disposal of the revision petition/representation filed by one Sri G.Gangadhar Patil and another, and subject to obtaining of District Level Committee approval along with feasibility report from the Ground Water Department. In Memo No. 14284/SPIU & SAND/2008-4, dated 28.7.2009, it is stated in clear terms that the Government have rejected the application dated 03.10.2008/revision petition filed by Sri K.Venka Gound, petitioner herein (2nd highest bidder) and Sri G.Gandhar Patil (1st highest bidder) respectively seeking permission to operate the sand quarry at Sunkini sand reach since the same is time barred. In the said Memo, it is also stated that the Government have further examined the matter and the Director of Mines and Geology, Hyderabad, the second respondent, was requested to consider the sand indents/requirements of the petitioner by M/s.A.P.Mineral Development Corporation Limited, fourth respondent, from out of the temporary permits already given as per the terms and conditions and on first priority and to take further action accordingly under intimation to the Government. Pursuant to the aforesaid Memo of the first respondent dated 28.7.2009 the second respondent has accorded necessary permission to the fourth respondent for issuance of temporary permits to lift the sand from the subject sand reach, subject to the satisfaction of conditions laid down under the A.P.Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966 and WALTA-2002 and abiding the conditions stipulated by Irrigation Department as per G.O.Rt.No.3561, I & CAD, dt. 5.6.2007 and subject to obtaining approval from District Level Committee. Subsequently, the fourth respondent applied for grant of temporary permit on 17.8.2009, pursuant to which, the third respondent, vide Proceedings No. 1227/Sunkini/2008-2009 dated 22.09.2009, accorded necessary permission for temporary permit to fourth respondent in accordance with Rule 9-M of the A.P.Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1996, for a period of 60 days subject to other conditions as stated supra. Questioning the said proceedings of the third respondent dated 22.09.2009, one Mr. Ch.Srinivas filed Writ Petition No.20950 of 2009 and this Court granted interim stay of operation of the said proceedings for a period of six weeks. However, the said Writ Petition was ultimately dismissed as withdrawn by order dated 14.09.2009. Thereafter, the first respondent, after careful examination of the proposal of the second respondent, issued Memo dated 11.03.2011 directing to take necessary immediate action to conduct public auction in respect of the subject sand reach, duly completing the auction process at the earliest. In the said proceedings, the first respondent has also directed the second respondent to take necessary steps for the stopgap arrangement in terms of Rule 9-M of the A.P.Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1996 to issue temporary permits in favour of the fourth respondent to lift the ordinary sand, as per rules. Pursuant to the said proceedings, the fourth respondent issued impugned auction tender in respect of the subject sand reach. It is the case of the petitioner that he was the highest bidder in the auction held in the year 2009 for quarrying ordinary sand from the subject reach and that due to intervention of extremists, he could not carry out the sand quarry operations. It is his further case that pursuant to his representation only, the Government has passed orders vide Memo dated 28.07.2009 granting temporary permit in favour of the fourth respondent for a period of sixty days. It is also his case that pursuant to the temporary permit granted in the name of the fourth respondent as per the rules, the latter vide proceedings 22.09.2009 issued work orders for a period of sixty days after depositing an amount of Rs.3,50,000/- by him. It is his grievance that in spite of the first respondent according necessary permission to issue temporary permit and depositing the necessary amount thereafter, the fourth respondent issued impugned sand auction tender in respect of the subject sand reach. I have given my anxious consideration to the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner. From a careful perusal of the aforesaid proceedings/Memos of the respondent authorities, it is axiomatic that the application of the petitioner to operate the sand quarry was rejected by the Government vide its proceedings in Memo dated 11.06.2009. The petitioner has not questioned the said rejection orders before any appropriate forum and the said rejection order has become final. It is the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the Government in its order dated 28.07.2009 gave specific instructions to consider the sand requirement of the petitioner and pursuant to the said order, the fourth respondent has communicated to the third respondent vide proceedings dated 17.8.2009 that the petitioner would deposit the required amount to operate the sand quarry. In the proceedings dated 28.7.2009 the Government has examined the matter and directed the second respondent to consider the sand indents/requirements of the petitioner by M/s. A.P. Mineral Development Corporation Limited from out of the temporary permits already given in the proceedings dated 15.05.2009, as per terms and conditions. It is to be seen that the Government, while permitting the second respondent vide proceedings dated 15.5.2009 to issue temporary permits in favour of the fourth respondent to lift the ordinary sand from the subject reach, however observed that the issuance of such permit shall be subject to disposal of the revision petition/representation filed by the petitioner and another and that it is axiomatic from the said same proceedings that the revision petition/representation filed by the petitioner and another seeking permission to operate the sand quarry from the subject reach was dismissed. Pursuant to the proceedings of the Government dated 28.7.2009, the third respondent submitted his report vide proceedings dated 3.12.2009 and thereafter, the Government issued proceedings dated 16.3.2011 according necessary permission to issue temporary permits in favour of the fourth respondent. In the proceedings dated 3.12.2009, the third respondent clearly stated that the permit cannot be revalidated for further period and requested the second respondent to issue necessary instructions for issuing temporary permits in favour of the fourth respondent. Even from a perusal of the proceedings of the fourth respondent dated 17.08.2009 it is clear that there is no specific direction or instruction to the petitioner to deposit the required amount so as to operate the sand quarry nor is there any allotment of sand quarry lease in favour of the petitioner. It is only an internal correspondence between the fourth and third respondent wherein the former has informed the latter as to the decision of the District Level Sand Committee and pursuant thereto, he sought necessary permission to issue temporary permits. The next submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that pursuant to the representation of the petitioner dated 6.12.2010, the Government passed orders dated 11.3.2011 granting temporary permit to the fourth respondent and pursuant to the same the second respondent vide proceedings dated 16.3.2011 granted temporary permit to the fourth respondent for a period of sixty days. From a reading of the aforesaid proceedings, it is palpable that as per Rule 9-M(2) of the A.P. Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966, permission is accorded to the second respondent to issue temporary permits in favour of the fourth respondent as per rules. Even a reading of the proceedings dated 11.03.2011 does not disclose that the so-called representation dated 06.02.2010 submitted by the petitioner had been looked into while passing the proceedings dated 11.03.2011. On the other hand, the said proceedings show that in terms Rule 9-M of the A.P.Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966 as a stopgap arrangement, permission was accorded to the second respondent to issue temporary permits in favour of the fourth respondent. Further, Rule 9-L of the A.P. Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966 contemplates that the lease cannot be extended beyond the lease period under any circumstances by any of the authority. Normally the fourth respondent Corporation shall either do the mining activity itself or lease its rights only after holding a public auction and in any case it shall not give the leasehold rights to any one on nomination basis. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner that the Government acted upon his representation dated 06.12.2010 and passed the consequential proceedings dated 11.03.2011 and 16.03.2011 is fallacious. It is to be seen that the petitioner has not placed before this Court any of the proceedings issued either by the fourth respondent or other respondent authorities, directing him to deposit the necessary amount for issuance of permit nor any other proceedings or order from the fourth respondent directing him to carry on the sand quarry operation. The contention of the petitioner that on his representation dated 03.10.2008 alone, the Government earlier passed necessary orders dated 28.07.2009 and 22.09.2009 granting temporary permit in favour of the fourth respondent cannot be countenanced for the reason that mere mentioning the representation of the petitioner in the reference column of the proceedings dated 28.7.2009 and 22.9.2009 would not, by itself, mean that the petitioner has been accorded necessary permit to operate the sand quarry. All the proceedings, which are annexed to the writ petition, are silent as to the grant of necessary permit to the petitioner to carry the sand quarry operations. It appears that the petitioner has deposited the amount in the bank in favour of the fourth respondent, on his own accord, and there appears no proceedings from the respondent authorities directing him to do so. Mere depositing of the amount on his volition particularly in the absence of any direction from the respondent authorities to do so shall not accrue any right on the petitioner for grant of sand quarry permit. It is to be further noted that whenever the question with regard to grant of temporary permit in respect of any sand reach arises, M/s.Andhra Pradesh Mineral Development Corporation Limited is being granted permit as per the provisions of Rule 9- M of the A.P. Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966 and normally the said Corporation shall either do the mining activity itself or lease its rights only after holding a public auction and in any case it shall not give the leasehold rights to any one on nomination basis. In view of the foregoing discussion, I do not find any merit in the Writ Petition which is liable to be dismissed. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. -------------------------------------- JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA Dated 29th April, 2011. Msnro