IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION No.89 of 2009 Between: Kakani Purnachander Rao, S/o. Sri Venkata Subba Rao, R/o. D.No. 255, Muvva Village and Mandal, Krishna District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Industries & Commerce (M-I) Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad, Rep. by its Secretary. 2 The District Level Committee for Sand Auctions, Krishna District Rep. by its Chairman cum Joint Collector, Krishna District. 3 The Director, Department of Mines and Geology, 8th Flor, BRKR Bhavan, Tank Bund, Hyderabad. 4 The Assistant Director of Mines & Geology cum Member Convenor, District Level Committee for Sand Auctions, Krishna District. .....RESPONDENTS 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 to issue a Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 4th respondent herein in issuing the impugned Auction Notice NO. 772/Q/2007, dt. 24-12-2008 in so far as notifying Lankapalli Sand reach of Mamidimukkala Mandal of Krishna District for a period of 59 days and further extension of one year i.e., from 1-4-2009 to 31-3-2010, on payment of 20% enhanced highest bid amount as arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the A.P. Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966, without jurisdiction, and set aside the same and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.ANDAPALLI SANJEEV KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR MINES AND GEOLOGY The Court made the following: Form-NIC-OGS/WP{SPJS} THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION No.89 of 2009 O R D E R: The petitioner questions the auction notice No.772/Q/2007, dated 24.12.2008 issued by the 4th respondent-Assistant Director, Mines and Geology, Vijayawada, in so far as notifying the Lankapalli sand reach of Mamidimukkala Mandal, Krishna District for a period of 59 days commencing from 01.02.2009 to 31.03.2009 for the first year and for further period of one year from 01.04.2009 to 31.03.2010 with 20% enhancement of the knocked down bid amount for 365 days, as illegal and arbitrary. It is stated that sealed tenders are invited for public auction to lease out the right of quarrying for sand in Madduru and Lankapalli sand reaches. The petitioner questions the notification relating to the Lankapalli sand reach alone. It is the case of the petitioner that he was the highest bidder in the auction conducted on 29.09.2007 in pursuance of the earlier auction notice No.644/Q/2007, dated 12.09.2007 issued by the 4th respondent to grant leasehold rights of Lankapalli sand reach of Mamidimukkala Mandal of Krishna District up to 31.03.2008 and further extension of one year i.e. from 01.04.2008 to 31.03.2009 on payment of 20% enhanced highest bid amount. The petitioner had quoted Rs.73,09,999/- and he was declared as highest bidder and he has deposited 25% of bid amount on 03.10.2007 and accordingly, a letter of confirmation of grant of leasehold rights is also issued on 04.10.2007. It is stated that after confirmation of lease, the 4th respondent issued a letter dated 05.10.2007, directing the petitioner to pay 75% of the knocked down bid amount within 7 days from the date of confirmation i.e. 04.10.2007. But it is stated that as the said letter was received by the petitioner on 11.10.2008, he could not deposit 75% of the bid amount within 7 days, therefore, he has requested to grant some time for payment of 75% bid amount, and deposited 75% of the bid amount on 16.10.2007 as per alleged extension of time said to have granted and requested to execute the lease deed. It is stated that as there was a delay of 5 days in payment of the 75% amount, the 4th respondent requested the Government to condone the delay, enabling him to execute the lease deed and accordingly, the Government issued a Memo dated 07.12.2007, condoning the delay under Rule-9K of A.P.Mines Mineral Concession Rules, 1966 in execution of the lease deed, subject to condition that the commencement of the lease must be with retrospective effect from the last date permitted for execution i.e. from 10.10.2007 besides other formal conditions. For the said condition, it is stated that as the petitioner has lost 72 days of leasehold rights without actual quarrying of sand, he filed an appeal, explaining the reasons and requested to reckon the lease period from the date of execution i.e.12.12.2007 instead of 10.10.2007. It is stated that in the meanwhile some of the third parties filed writ petition challenging the condonation of delay proceedings issued by the Government dated 07.12.2007, but, however, the said writ petition has been dismissed. As the respondents did not consider the request of the petitioner to reckon the lease period from 12.12.2007 instead of 10.10.2007, the petitioner filed W.P.26521/2007 questioning the said condition imposed for execution of the lease deed with retrospective effect and the same was dismissed by order dated 20.02.2008. Against which, the petitioner filed W.A.304/2008, in which the Division Bench of this Court passed interim order dated 19.03.2008, giving liberty to the petitioner to make a representation to the Government for condonation of delay, if any, caused in deposit of the amount for the ensuing years. Accordingly, the petitioner made a representation dated 24.03.2008 to the Government requesting to reckon the lease period from the date of execution i.e. 12.12.2007 instead of 10.10.2007 and to condone the delay in depositing the second year lease amount by directing the 4th respondent to accept the second year lease amount. The Government issued a Memo dated 18.04.2008, extending the lese period for a period of 72 days from the date of the said memo, but the request of the petitioner in full, as observed by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.304/2008, dated 19.03.2008, has not been considered. It is stated that pursuant to the Government Memo dated 18.04.2008, the lease period of first term expired by 01.07.2008 as it was for 72 days alone from 18.04.2008, as such the time for payment of second year amount will expire by 45 days prior to 01.07.2008 i.e. by 15.05.2008 and the representation of the petitioner dated 24.03.2008 is pending and not considered. It is stated that in the meanwhile, the 4th respondent issued the impugned auction notice No.772/Q/2007, dated 24.12.2008, notifying Lankapalli sand reach of Mamidimukkala Mandal for a period of 59 days from 01.02.2009 to 31.03.2009 and further extension of one year i.e. from 01.04.2009 to 31.03.2010 on payment of 20% enhanced highest bid amount. The petitioner questions the said impugned auction notice, as illegal, arbitrary and in violation of the directions of the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.304/2008, dated 19.03.2008. I have perused the material papers available on record and heard the arguments of both the counsel. As per the letter of the 4th respondent dated 05.10.2007, the bid of the petitioner was confirmed on 04.10.2007 and 75% of the knocked down bid has to be paid by the petitioner within 7 days from the date of confirmation. Admittedly, the petitioner did not pay the said amount within prescribed time. A perusal of the Memo of the Government dated 07.12.2007 goes to show that the petitioner’s highest bid was accepted on 04.10.2007 and confirmation letter was also issued on 05.10.2007, directing him to pay 75% of the knocked down payment together with income tax and security deposit etc. on or before 10.10.2007, but the petitioner failed to submit challans to execute lease deed within stipulated time, and he has requested the Government to extend the lease period for a period of three months time, as there were floods in the Krishna River. But the 4th respondent reported that there were no floods in Krishna river at present and there was no problem to dig the sand from the sand reach, and the Government examined the request of the petitioner and condoned the delay in execution of the lease deed, subject to condition that the petitioner agrees to execute the lease deed by paying balance amount, if any, and should submit the required documents within seven days from the date of the said order and commencement of the lease must be with retrospective effect from the last date permitted for execution i.e. from 10.10.2007. However, the validity of the agreement will be subject to the result of W.P.No.20448 of 2007. Questioning the said condition imposed in the aforesaid memo dated 07.12.2007, the petitioner filed W.P.26521 of 2007, which was dismissed by order dated 20.02.2008. Against which, the petitioner filed W.A.304/2008 and the Division Bench of this Court, while adjourning the matter to 28.03.2008, by order dated 19.03.2008, passed the following order: “In the meantime, it would be open to the appellant to make a representation to the Government for condonation of delay, if any, caused in deposit of the amount for the ensuing year. We are sure that the representation, if made, shall be considered in accordance with law.” It is not known what happened and what steps are taken in the said writ appeal after making the aforesaid order. As the summer is the main season for sand quarrying, the regular routine auction of leasehold rights of sand quarrying cannot be postponed. Admittedly, the petitioner has not executed any leased deed and he has no vested right as on today, and hence the respondents issued the impugned notification dated 24.12.2008 for auctioning the leasehold rights of Lankapalli sand reach. In respect of contractual matters, the rights and liabilities of the respective parties will depend upon the terms and conditions of the contract and any default found on the part of respondents, there is legal recourse open for getting compensation and damages. If the petitioner aggrieved for the action of the respondents, it is always open for the petitioner either to get redressal in the pending writ appeal or by way of invoking other civil remedies. I do not see any justification to interfere with the impugned auction notification and the petitioner is not entitled for any relief, as sought for in this writ petition. The Writ Petition is, accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs. ___________________ V.ESWARAIAH,J Dated: 07.01.2009 Dsr ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Industries & Commerce (M-I) Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad, Rep. by its Secretary. 2 The District Level Committee for Sand Auctions, Krishna District Rep. by its Chairman cum Joint Collector, Krishna District. 3 The Director, Department of Mines and Geology, 8th Flor, BRKR Bhavan, Tank Bund, Hyderabad. 4 The Assistant Director of Mines & Geology cum Member Convenor, District Level Committee for Sand Auctions, Krishna District. 5.2CCs to 6.2CD copies