THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN W.P.NO.13148 of 2008 02-02-2010 BETWEEN; Erram Agaiah and three others ...Petitioners vs. The Government of A.P. Mines and Geology Department and others ...Respondents THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN W.P.NO.13148 of 2008 ORAL ORDER: (Per GR,J) The petitioners who are residents of Anupuram Village, Vemulavad Mandal, Karimnagar District have filed this writ petition in public interes challenging the auction notification dated 10-06-2008 issued by the 3r respondent for conduct of public auctions through sealed tenders for gran of quarry leases of sand, a minor mineral, in the reaches specified in th notification, scheduled to be held on 25-06-2008, as violative of the A.P Minor Mineral Concession Rules,1966 ( for short “the 1966 Rules”). The challenge is, inter alia, on the ground that a report from th Director, Ground Water Department on the ground water impact by th quarrying operations had not been obtained, as mandated under Rule 9 B(6) of the 1966 Rules. In the counter-affidavit filed by the 3rd respondent, it is stated that th area in question would come under the submergence of Mid Mana Reservoir; that the auction was proposed to cater to the needs of sand fo the construction of “ Mid Manair Canal”; that the Ground Water Departmen had earlier declined grant of clearance for 22 areas of Manair river; an that no clearance was obtained from the Ground Water Department a none was required as in a similar case in a Moosi project of Nalgond District, no such prior clearance of the Water Department was obtained. In view of the provisions of Rule 9-B(6) of the 1966 Rules and th judgment of this Court dated 10-08-2009 in W.P.No.9753 of 2009, the lega position is clear that no quarrying of sand is permissible without a prio clearance obtained from the Director of Ground Water Department on th aspect whether the quarrying would adversely impact the ground wate levels in the area in question. In the circumstances, the impugned auction notification cannot b sustained and is accordingly quashed. The writ petition is allowed. No order as to costs. ______________ GODA RAGHURAM,J __________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN,J 2ND FEBRUARY 2010. TSNR