THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT APPEAL No.334 of 2010 August 04, 2010 Between: Y.Sambasiva Rao, S/o.Basavaiah … Appellant And Gude Ranga Rao, S/o.Sri Peddaiah And others ... Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT APPEAL No.334 of 2010 JUDGMENT: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice V.V.S.Rao) This is an appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 30.4.2009 in W.P.No.25793 of 2008, whereby and whereunder the learned Single Judge quashed the proceedings No.702/Sand/2008(R-5), dated 13.10.2008 of the fourth respondent, namely, the Assistant Director of Mines & Geology, Guntur, permitting the additional ramp to the appellant to carry sand from the reach leased out to him. The facts, which are not in dispute, are as follows. As required under the Andhra Pradesh Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966 (the Rules), the District Level Committee for Sand Auctions (fourth respondent herein) conducted the auction on 14.2.2008 in respect of reach No.5 at Kollipara village between 17.800 KM to 34.200 KM on right flood bank of Krishna river with ramp at 33.700 KM in down stream of Prakasam barriage. The lease was initially for a period of one year i.e., from 23.4.2008 to 31.3.2009 extendable by another year. The appellant herein became successful by bidding at Rs.1,66,00,000/- per annum. It appears, after completing the formalities, the appellant made a request on 20.2.2008 to the fourth respondent for permission to utilise additional ramp at 22.400 KM at Vallabhapuram village. By order impugned in the writ petition, the fourth respondent accorded permission purportedly under Rule 9 of the Rules. The first respondent, who is an unsuccessful bidder in the auction conducted on 14.2.2008, assailed the additional ramp permission in the writ petition. The learned Single Judge, on a plain reading of Rule 9(n) of the Rules, came to the conclusion that mandatory requirement for obtaining prior permission from the Mandal Revenue Officer for additional ramp at 22.400 KM was not obtained and, therefore, the proceedings of the Assistant Director were quashed. In this appeal, the counsel for the appellant relying on an unreported Division Bench judgment of this Court in M.Siva Ramakrishna v Government of A.P.[1] submits that the condition of obtaining permission for additional ramp is mandatory only in respect of land belonging to the Government and if such additional ramp is to be permitted in respect of the land forming part of river bed, no such permission is required. Per contra, the Counsel for the first respondent submits that the question raised by the appellant has become academic in view of the expiry of lease of the appellant on 31.3.2010. We have perused the order of the Division Bench in M.Siva Ramakrishna. However, we need not go into the merits of the case with reference to the Division Bench judgment because the lease granted to the appellant herein itself expired. There is no dispute on this. The Counsel, however, submits that the issue involved is a legal question, which needs to be decided finally. It is no doubt true that the Division Bench did not agree with the view expressed in the order impugned in the writ appeal. That itself is not a ground to adjudicate an issue, which has become academic in view of the subsequent events, namely, the lease itself having expired on 31.3.2010. We are, therefore, not inclined to go into the question. The writ appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs. ________________ (V.V.S. RAO, J) _______________________________ (RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J) August 04, 2010 YS [1] W.P.No.20128 of 2009, dated 14.7.2010