THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY W.P.No.32308 of 2010 Date : 22-12-2010 Between : Y.Vidya Sagar s/o.Venkateshwar Rao .. Petitioner And Government of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Principal Secretary, Industries & Commerce Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others .. Respondents Counsel for petitioner : Sri C.V.R. Rudra Prasad Counsel for respondents 1 to 3 : Government Pleader for Mines & Geology Counsel for respondent No.4 : The Court made the following: ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed for a mandamus to set-aside proceedings in Memo No.16826/M.I(1)/2010, dated 24-11-2010 of respondent No.1 and consequential proceedings dated 1-12-2010 of respondent No.3 as illegal and arbitrary. I have heard Sri C.V.R. Rudra Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Mines and Geology, representing the respondents. In response to the notice issued by the respondents for auction of leasehold rights for sand quarrying, the petitioner participated in the auction held on 6-4-2009 and emerged the highest bidder in respect of Madduru Sand Reach of Krishna river. The District Collector has confirmed the auction in favour of the petitioner on 20-5-2009 and a lease deed was executed in respect thereof on 1- 6-2009. The petitioner claimed that due to damage to the old bridge and constructing a new bridge in its place, dispatch permits were not issued till 18-11-2009 though the work order was issued on 1-6-2009 itself and that therefore he was disabled from working out the quarry from 1-6-2009 to 17-11-2009. When respondent No.3 has not considered the representation of the petitioner dated 18-11-2009, he filed W.P.No.2147/2010 wherein this court granted interim order on 4-2-2010 directing respondent No.3 to consider the petitioner’s representation dated 18-11-2009. Purporting to consider the said representation, respondent No.3 passed order dated 12-3-2010 directing the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.1,26,29,000/- from out of Rs.2,54,45,000/- towards second year lease amount on or before 10-4-2010 after adjusting the proportionate remission amount towards the alleged non-operation period from 1-6-2009 to 17-11- 2009. The petitioner has accordingly paid the said amount in pursuance of which respondent No.3 has issued work order dated 31-3-2010. While the petitioner was working on the quarry, respondent No.1 passed order dated 24-11-2010 stating that the grant of remission by respondent No.3 in favour of the petitioner for the alleged non-operating period is irregular and without jurisdiction and that the same has caused loss to the tune of Rs.92,67,986/- to the Government. On this premise, respondent No.1 directed the Director of Mines and Geology to stop quarry operations in Madduru Sand Reach until further orders. Feeling aggrieved by both these orders, the petitioner filed the present Writ Petition. At the hearing, Sri C.V.R. Rudra Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner fairly submitted that his client is prepared to pay back Rs.92,67,986/-, which was permitted to be withheld by him towards the purported remission for the alleged non-operational period, which is the only reason for respondent No.1 to pass the impugned order, without prejudice to the right of his client to approach respondent No.1 for grant of remission similar to the order passed by respondent No.1 vide Memo No.12558/SPIU & SAND/2010-2, dated 12-10-2010 in case of one B.Venkat Prasad, lessee of reach Nos.6 and 7 of Kolluru and Juvvalapalem, Guntur District. The learned Assistant Government Pleader while stating that the petitioner is not entitled to remission, however, submitted that if the petitioner is prepared to pay back the above said amount which was withheld by him, purportedly towards proportionate remission, the respondents will not have any objection to permit him to operate the quarry for the second year, subject to the outcome of the enquiry that is presently going on against the then incumbent of respondent No.3 and irrespective of the entitlement of the petitioner, he may feel free to make a representation to respondent No.1 for remission. Inasmuch as the sole reason for respondent No.1 issuing the impugned order being the alleged unlawful withholding of Rs.92,67,986/- by the petitioner, as the petitioner has offered to pay back the said amount, subject to his claim for remission that may be made by him before respondent No.1, I do not find any reason to prevent the petitioner from operating the quarry for the second year subject, however, to the outcome of the enquiry that is stated to be pending against the then Assistant Director of Mines and Geology. While this court is not inclined to express any opinion on the legality or otherwise of the Memo No.12558/SPIU & SAND/2010-2, dated 12- 10-2010, the petitioner shall be free to approach respondent No.1 for claiming proportionate remission. In such an event, respondent No.1 shall dispose of the petitioner’s representation in accordance with law. The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of with the direction to the respondents to permit the petitioner to operate the quarry in Madduru Sand Reach immediately on the petitioner remitting a sum of Rs.92,67,986/-. As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Petition, WPMP No.41408/2010 is disposed of as infructuous. __________________________ C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY.,J Date: 22-12-2010 AM