IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA WRIT PETITION NO : 7759 of 2008 Between: The Boatsmen Sand Quarry Fishermen Co-operative Society Limited, C-107 Mummidivaram, Mummudivaram Mandal, East Godavari District, Rep by its President R. Govinda Rao, S/o. Venkat Reddy, Aged about 40 years, Mummidivaram, Mummudivaram Mandal, East Godavari District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Secretary, Industries & Commerce Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The Director of Mines & Geology, BRK Bhavan, Hyderabad. 3 The District Collector & the Confirming Authority, East Godavari District, Kakinada. 4 Joint Collector & Chairman (DLC), Sand Auctions Kakinada 5 The Assistant Director of Mines & Geology, Member & Convenor, Sand Action Committee, East Godavari District, Rajahmundry .....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 a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring that the act of the respondents in issuing Memo No. 4317/SPIU & SAND/2008-1 dt. 31-3-2008 is highly illegal, arbitrary, void abinitio and against the principles of natural justice and common order passed by this Hon'ble High Court dated 31-3-2008 in WP No. 6414 of 2008 etc., and consequently to set aside the Memo No. 4317/SPIU&SAND/2008-1 dt. 31-3-2008 issued by the 1st respondent. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.S.I.VARAHA GIRI Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR INDUSTRIES & COMMERCE The Court made the following : Form-NIC-OGS/WP{RLD} O R D E R:- This writ petition is filed seeking a mandamus to declare the action of the 1st respondent- Government in issuing Memo dated 31.3.2008, which is contrary to the common order dated 31.3.2008 passed by this Court in W.P.No.2626 of 2008 and batch, as arbitrary and illegal. The case of the petitioner-Boatsmen Sand Quarry Fishermen Cooperative Society Limited is that the 1st respondent-Government proposed to put the sand reaches in Godavari River to public auction of quarrying rights over ordinary sand for a period upto 31.3.2008. Accordingly, the 3rd respondent-District Collector-cum-Confirming Authority issued Auction Notification dated 5.9.2007. The 4th respondent-Joint Collector conducted the auction on 22.9.2007 and the petitioner became the highest bidder. Later, the 2nd respondent-Director of Mines and Geology confirmed the bid in favour of the petitioner entitling him to continue the lease from 1.4.2008 to 31.3.2009 on payment of 20% extra on the bid amount. Later, the petitioner made an application dated 1.2.2008 to the 3rd respondent submitting his willingness to continue the lease and also to pay the 20% of the hike amount in addition to the bid amount for the second year commencing from 1.4.2008 to 31.3.2009. This Court already passed a common order dated 31.3.2008 in W.P.No.2626 of 2008 and batch in favour of the petitioner herein and similarly situated persons and Fishermen Cooperative Society, with the following direction: “As the State Government is conferred with the power under Rule 9-K(3) of the Rules, to clarify and decide such issues, it is suffice to direct the Government to decide the said issue at an early date preferably within a period of two weeks from today. However, as the lease is for a period of two years commencing from different dates upto 31.3.2009, petitioners shall be permitted to proceed with the quarrying of sand at the reaches, to which they are the lessees, on their paying/depositing the original lease amount along with 20% enhancement as stipulated under Rule 9-P of the Rules as amended as per G.O.Ms.No.84 Industries & Commerce (M.I) Department, dated 10.4.2007.” Now, the petitioner’s grievance is that the 1st respondent-Government in defiance of the order of this Court issued the impugned Memo dated 31.3.2008 according permission to the 2nd respondent to issue temporary permits to lift the ordinary sand in respect of 27 sand reaches situated at East Godavari District in favour of M/s.A.P.Mineral Development Corporation Ltd. for a period of 30 days i.e. from 1.4.2008 or till completion of auction process whichever is earlier. Heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material placed on record. The issuance of temporary permits is in accordance with the provisions of Section 9-M of the Andhra Pradesh Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 1966 (for brevity “the Rules). The learned Government Pleader has submitted that the 1st respondent-Government issued the impugned Memo on account of failure on the part of the petitioner in depositing the second year lease amount within 45 days before the expiry of the first year lease period. If the amount is paid within a period of 45 days before the expiry of the first year lease period, the 5th respondent-Asst. Director of Mines & Geology is competent to extend the lease for the second year and if the amount is deposited after 45 days, it is only the Government, which is competent, to extend lease period for the second year. Insofar as the first year lease period is concerned, it is not clear as to whether the amount deposited by the petitioner is to be reckoned from the date when the lease was granted or from 1.4.2008 to 31.3.2009, and in view of this context alone the batch of writ petitions were disposed of with a direction to the Government to clarify the same as provided under Section 9-K(3) of the Rules. As the petitioner is one of the writ petitioners in the batch of cases and its matter is also to be considered under Section 9-K(3) of the Rules, this Court is of the view that the Memo dated 31.3.2008 issued by the 1st respondent shall not be given effect to for a period of one year i.e. upto 31.3.2009 and thus, the same is kept in abeyance. Further, as the petitioner’s application dated 1.2.2008 is lying with the 1st respondent, the 1st respondent may consider it by condoning the delay and extend the period of lease. In terms of the above direction, this writ petition is disposed of at the admission stage. No costs. ______________ 10.04.2008 Note: Furnish copy by tomorrow B/o bcj