IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) SATURDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA WRIT PETITION NO : 7792 of 2008 Between: D.Ganga Reddy S/o.Sri Gangaram R/o.Kaligote (V) Jakranpally(M) Nizamabad Dist ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Govt. of A.P Rep. by its Principal Secretary Panchayat Raj and Rural Development Nizamabad Dist 2 The Dist Collector Nizamabad, Nizamabad Dist 3 Deputy Director of Mines & Geology Nizamabad Dist Nizamabad 4 Dist Panchayat Officer Nizamabad Dist Nizamabad 5 The Chairman Dist Level Sand Commitee Zilla Parishad Nizamabad,Nizamabad Dist .....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 an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction of the respondents in not passing any orders on the representation dt.31-03- 2008 and consequently direct the respondents to permit the petitioner to quarry the sand at Kaligote (V) Jankranapally(M) Nizamabad Dist as per the auction confirmed in Procs No.1084/2000-B5 (pts) dt.04-10-2000. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.K.DURGA PRASAD Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR MINES AND GEOLOGY The Court made the following : Form-NIC-OGS/WP{BMR} O R D E R:- This writ petition is filed seeking a mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in not passing any orders on the petitioner’s representation dated 31.3.2008, as arbitrary and illegal, and consequently direct the respondents to permit the petitioner to quarry the sand at Kaligote village as per the auction confirmed in Proceedings dated 4.10.2000. The petitioner asserts that in pursuance of a Tender Notice dated 6.9.2000 issued by the 2nd respondent-Collector inviting tenders for quarrying sand at Kaligote village, Jakranpally Mandal, Nizamabad District, commencing from 1.10.2000 to 30.9.2002, the petitioner participated in the tender and became the highest bidder by quoting Rs.2,40,000/- for a period of two years and the bid was confirmed in his favour and a lease agreement was executed to that effect. The petitioner started his work, but it was obstructed by Naxalities, and he was warned not to carry out sand quarry operations. The 2nd respondent, on being informed, directed the petitioner not to continue the work. Then, the petitioner stopped his work and made a representation dated 31.3.2008 to the 2nd respondent requesting either to permit him to complete the work by extending the lease period or refund the amount paid by him. Now, the petitioner’s grievance is that the respondents, without considering his representation, granted permission to number of similarly situated persons to operate the quarry. Heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material placed on record. The petitioner is a lessee, who is bound to quarry the sand for the lease period commencing from 1.10.2000 to 30.9.2002, and in the normal course, the lease was to expire on 30.9.2002, but because of certain contingencies, he could not complete the quarry operations and he carried on the work only upto December, 2000. So far as the remaining period is concerned, he gave a representation dated 31.3.2008 requesting the authorities to permit him to complete the work left in the balance period. The learned Government Pleader for Mines and Geology has submitted that as per G.O.Ms.No.84, dated 10.4.2007, the extension of lease is not permissible. It is not for this Court to decide as to whether the lease is to be extended or not and it is suffice to direct the respondents 2 and 3 to consider his representation 31.3.2008 and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. With the above direction, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs. ______________ 10.04.2008 bcj