HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA WRIT PETITION No. 4661 OF 2011 . DATED 29th June, 2011 BETWEEN N. Rambabu …Petitioner And The Government of Andhra Pradesh, ….Respondents. HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA WRIT PETITION No. 4661 of 2011 ORDER: The Assistant director of Mines and Geology, Guntur, fourth respondent herein, issued tender notice on 05.03.2010 inviting sealed tenders proposing to hold public auction for leasing out the rights of quarrying sand in the sources described in the schedule mentioned therein, for a period of two years commencing from 01.04.2010 to 31.3.2012. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner approached the respondent authorities on 19.03.2010 with all requisite documents for submitting his bid in respect of reach No. 3 at Sl.No.4 under Table. I of the aforesaid tender notice, situate at Kollipara, Guntur District. However, the fourth respondent refused to accept the so called bid of the petitioner on account of the interim stay granted by this Court in Writ Petition No. 4086 of 2010. It is the grievance of the petitioner that without conducting fresh auction, the respondent authorities in collusion with the third parties are trying to grant lease to an individual giving a go-bye to the procedure contemplated under Rules 9-B and 9-D of the Andhra Pradesh Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966 ( for short ‘the Rules of 1966’). Immediately after issuance of the aforesaid tender notice, the existing lease holder, one Sri Y.Sambasiva Rao, approached this Court by way of filing Writ Petition No. 4086 of 2010 seeking a direction not to conduct auction in respect of the subject reach until disposal of the Revision Application filed by him and pending before the Government. It was the case of the existing lease holder before the Government that on account of interim stay granted by this Court in Writ Petition No. 9753 of 2009, dated 01.05.2009 he could not conduct sand quarry operations and that pursuant to the order of the Apex Court in S.L.P.No. 27167 of 2009, dated 29.01.2010 he had been allowed to continue the quarry operation till the expiry of lease period, i.e. up to 31.03.2010 and therefore his lease period may be extended equivalent to the non-operation period. The Writ Petition No. 4086 of 2010 filed by the existing leaseholder was disposed of by this Court by order dated 15.03.2010 directing the first respondent- Government to dispose of the Revision Petition filed by the said Sambasiva Rao within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order and the Assistant Director of Mines and Geology, Guntur was directed not to proceed with the proposed auction till the disposal of the Revision Application. Today when the matter is taken up for hearing, the learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submits that the Revision Application filed by the said Sambasiva Rao is dismissed by the Government today i.e. 29.06.2011. The learned Senior Counsel, Sri S.R. Ashok, appearing on behalf of the learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that in as much as one financial year has elapsed, the respondents cannot continue the auction process initiated in the month of March, 2010. He further submits that if the fresh auction notice is issued, not only the petitioner, but also several other prospective interested bidders would be able to participate in the tender process. From the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the fourth respondent, it is clear that pursuant to the aforesaid tender notice, though three persons, including the petitioner, have taken the bid forms, but only one person, Sri K. Dharma Rao, has submitted his bid form on 18.03.2010. It is stated in the counter affidavit that the said filled-in bid form was received from the said K.Dharma Rao without knowledge of the stay order granted by this Court. The learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the respondents would submit that in as much as the Revision Application filed by the said Sambasiva Rao was dismissed by the Government, all the hurdles were removed and now the respondents would proceed with the auction process afresh. Learned Counsel appearing for the impleaded respondent submits that a bare perusal of the stay order passed by this Court on 15.03.201 would show that the said stay order does not bar the receipt of the filled-in bid forms from the prospective bidders. He further submits that in as much as there is only one bid in respect of the subject reach, the fourth respondent in exercise of powers conferred under Section 9-H (5) of the Rules of 1966, at his discretion, may knock down the bid in his favour and in such cases, he will be treated as highest bidder for the said reach. It is true that in exercise of powers under Section 9-H(5) of the Rules of 1966, in case a single bid is received for any reach, the auction conducting authority at his discretion may knock down the bid in his favour and that being so, he will be treated as the highest bidder for the said reach. However, in the case on hand, more than one year has elapsed from the date of initiation of the auction for leasing out the rights of quarrying sand in respect of the subject reach. It may not be feasible at this stage to direct the respondents to proceed with the auction process in respect of the subject reach. As rightly contended by the learned Senior Counsel, if a fresh notification is issued, not only the petitioner, but also other interested prospective bidders may also be able to participate in the tender process. In that view of the matter, the tender notice issued on 05.03.2010 in respect of the subject reach is set aside directing the respondents to issue tender notice afresh in respect of the subject reach, if so desirous for leasing out the quarrying sand in respect of the subject reach. In as much as the fifth respondent has submitted his bid pursuant to the impugned tender notice by paying necessary requisite Earnest Money, he is at liberty to seek for refund of the same, in which event, the respondent authorities shall consider the same expeditiously. The Writ Petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs. -------------------------------------- JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA Dated 29.06.2011. Msnro