THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO. 8892 OF 2010 Dated 20th April, 2010 Between: The Konuru Sand and Board Workers …Petitioner And The Government of Andhra Pradesh and four others …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : Sri R.Radhakrishna Reddy Counsel for respondents 1 to 4: G.P for Mines and Geology The Court made the following ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a Mandamus to set aside proceedings in Memo No.16039/SPIU & Sand/2007-4 dated 15.04.2010 passed by respondent No.1. I have heard Sri R.Radhakrishna Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, and learned Government Pleader for Mines and Geology representing respondents 1 to 4. In pursuance of the auction notification issued by respondent No.4, the petitioner, a Boat Workers Cooperative Society, filed its tender for grant of leasehold rights of sand mining for the period from 10.10.2007 to 31.03.2009. The petitioner emerged as the highest bidder and deposited a part of the auction amount in terms of the Rules. When respondent No.5 sought to participate in the auction, the petitioner filed a writ petition, which was disposed of in its favour. However, in a Writ Appeal filed by respondent No.5, this Court granted status quo. Before lease agreement was executed in favour of the petitioner, respondent No.5 filed a revision before respondent No.1 and obtained stay on 23.10.2007. The auction period as notified under the tender notification expired on 31.03.2009. On 15.04.2010, the revision petition filed by respondent No.5 was considered and disposed of by respondent No.1 after calling for report from the Director of Mines and Geology-respondent No.3. Respondent No.1 observed that in view of expiry of the period for which auction was notified on 31.03.2009; nothing survives in the revision petition. Accordingly while dismissing the revision petition, it has directed respondent No.3 to refund the amounts paid by the petitioner and the second highest bidder and to conduct fresh auctions in respect of the reach in question. Assailing the said order, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. After carefully hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of the opinion that the order passed by respondent No.1 does not suffer from any illegality. The learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously contended that but for the stay granted by respondent No.1, the petitioner would have been permitted to enter into lease agreement and to carry on the mining operations till the expiry of the auction period as notified under the tender notification and that as it was prevented from carrying on the mining operation, respondent No.1 ought not to have directed holding of fresh auction as the petitioner’s right for extension of lease period is defeated by such direction. I do not find any merit in this submission. Indeed by the time respondent No.1 granted stay, the lease agreement was not executed in favour of the petitioner. Even in cases where such agreements were entered into, a Division Bench of this Court held in M.V.Siva Prasad v. Government of Andhra Pradesh[1], that Rule 9-L of the Andhra Pradesh Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966 prohibits the Government and other functionaries under the provisions of the Rules from extending the lease period whatever may be the reason. The said ratio applies to the petitioner with more vigour as not even a lease deed was executed in its favour. The dismissal of the revision petition by respondent No.1 cannot be found fault with as the auction period has expired. Equally the direction given by respondent No.1 to hold fresh auction also cannot be termed either as arbitrary or illegal because under Rule 9-B of the Rules, the Government is vested with the power to hold auctions subject to compliance of the requirements contained therein. When once the auction period has expired, the Government is entitled to hold fresh auctions. Therefore, I do not find any merit in the writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of main petition, WPMP No.11477 of 2010 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dated 20th April, 2010 vrn [1] 2010 (2) ALD 288 (DB)