IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 10844 of 2009 Between: Paruchuri Venkateswara Rao S/o.Rathnam R/o.Voleru Village, Battiprolu Mandal, Guntur District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Industries & Commerce (SPIU & SAND) Department, Secretariat Building, Hyderabad, represented by its Secretary. 2 The Director, Department of Mines and Geology, 8th Floor BRKR Bhavan, Tank Bund, Hyderabad. 3 The District Level Committee for Sand Auctions, Guntur District, represented by its Chairman cum Joint Collector, Guntur District. 4 The Assistant Director of Mines & Geology cum Member Convener, District Level Committee for Sand Auctions, Guntur, Guntur District. 5 P.Sailendra S/o.Narsimha Rao Flat No.301, B-Block, Royal Residency, Moghalrajapuram, Vijayawada, Krishna District. .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 1st respondent in issuing the impugned Memo.No.4316/SPIU & SAND/2009-1 dated 2.5.2009 permitting the 5th respondent, who is the highest bidder for Reach No.8 & 9, Penumudi and Morthota, Guntur District, to pay the bid amount in six equal installments as arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the Rule 9-C of A.P. Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966, colourable exercise of powers and favourtism shown to the 5th respondent and set aside the same. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.ANDAPALLI SANJEEV KUMAR Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 to 4: GP FOR MINES AND GEOLOGY Counsel for Respondent No.5: Sri C.V.R. Rudra Prasad The Court made the following : ORAL ORDER: (Per Sri Anil R. Dave, CJ) This is a public interest litigation wherein the petitioner has alleged that order dated 02-05-2009 passed by respondent No. 1 whereby quarrying of sand has been permitted to respondent No. 5 is illegal and, therefore, it should be quashed and set aside. The learned advocate Sri Sanjeev Kumar appearing for the petitioner has submitted that respondent No. 5, who has been permitted to quarry sand by virtue of the impugned order, has been permitted to make payment of the amount of bid in six equal instalments by virtue of Clause 7 of the impugned order. The learned advocate for the petitioner has drawn our attention to provisions of Rule 9-I (1) and (2) of Andhra Pradesh Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966 (for short, ‘the Rules’) which provide that successful bidder has to pay remaining 70% of the knock down amount within seven days from the confirmation of the order. Rule 9-I (2) of the Rules reads as under: “The successful tenderer/bidder on receipt of the order of the confirmation shall remit the remaining 70% of the knocked down amount to the Zilla Parishad Head of Account and remaining 5% of the total knocked down amount to the State head of Account as indicated in the order of confirmation and submit the challans to the concerned Asst., Director of Mines & Geology along with payment of prevailing Income Tax and a security deposit of 10% of the knocked down amount subject to the minimum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) or equivalent to bid amount whichever is less through National Saving Certificate duly pledged in favour of Governor or Bank Guarantee issued from any Naitonalized Banks and execute the lease deed with the Assistant Director of Mines & Geology concerned in Form G-1 on stamped paper as per the Registration and Stamp Act within seven days from the date of confirmation order. The lease period shall commence with effect from the date of execution of the lease deed.” Upon perusal of the aforestated Rule, it is very clear that respondent No. 5 could not have been permitted to pay the amount of bid in six instalments by virtue of the impugned order, but he ought to have been asked to deposit the entire amount within seven days from the date on which the auction had been confirmed in his favour. The learned Government Pleader appearing for respondent No. 1 has stated that the entire amount has been now paid by respondent No.5. The said fact has been confirmed by the learned advocate appearing for the petitioner. Looking to the subsequent development which has taken place, and especially, when the entire amount has been paid now, in our opinion, it would be just to dispose of the petition with an observation that the respondent authorities should not grant any relief to anyone in contravention of the provisions of the Rules. It is also pertinent to note that at the time of auction, respondent No.5 was the highest bidder and even today, nobody is ready and willing to pay higher amount than the amount offered by him. In the circumstances, in our opinion, the state exchequer has not been adversely affected and, therefore, we do not think it proper to quash and set aside the impugned order. In view of the fact that the entire amount has been now paid by respondent No.5 and as the Government has already received the said amount, the petition stands disposed of with no order as to costs. ANIL R. DAVE, CJ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J 15th June, 2009 ks