IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO : 13800 of 2009 Between: S.Venkata Srinivasa Reddy s/o.Ramakrishna Reddy R/o.Aravaly village Attili Mandal, West Godavari District ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by Principle Secretary, Industries & Commerce Department Secretariat, Andhra Pradesh 2 The Director, Mines & Geology, 8th floor, BRKR Bhavan Hyderabad 3 The Director, AP Mines Development Corporation Limited Abids,Hyderabad 4 The Asst. Director, Mines and Geology, Rajahmundry East Godavari District .....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 action of the respondents in not considering the representation dated 1.7.2009 of the petitioner and also not granting temporary permits under Rule 9 (M) of AP Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966 in respect of reach No.10 Vemgagiri-Kadiyapulanka , East Godavari District to him as illegal, arbitrary, and unconstitutional and consequently direct the respondents 2 to 4 to grant temporary permits to the petitioner in respect of reach No.10 Vemagiri-Kadiyalpulanka, East Godavari District by considering the representation made by the petitioner on 1.7.2009 and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.N.RAVI PRASAD Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR MINES AND GEOLOGY The Court made the following: O R D E R:- The petitioner asserts that he is a contractor dealing in sand in East and West Godavari Districts. While so, in pursuance of the Tender Notification dated 8.5.2009, issued by the 4th respondent-Assistant Director of Mines and Geology, proposing to conduct auction of Reach No.10, which is covered in package No.11 at Vemagiri, Kadiyapulanka, East Godavari District, to lease out the right of quarrying for sand in sources described in the tender schedule, the petitioner submitted his application, but the auction scheduled to be held on 23.05.2009, was not conducted for the reason that no person came forward on that day for auctioning. Then, the petitioner made a representation, dated 01.07.2009 to the respondents requesting them to grant temporary permit to quarry the sand in Reach No.10, but it is his grievance that the respondents have not granted temporary permit to him. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that according to Rule 9-M(2) of A.P. Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966 (for short “the Rules”), temporary permits may be granted by the 2nd respondent-Director of Mines and Geology for a period not exceeding 60 days, and prayed that the 2nd respondent may be directed to grant temporary permit. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Mines and Geology appearing for the respondents. Rule 9-M(2) of the Rules, which deals with temporary permits, reads as under: “(2) Due to any exigency and with the approval of the Government, the Director of Mines and Geology may order issuance of temporary permits in any area pending finalization of auctions on nomination basis to Andhra Pradesh Mineral Development Corporation, who in turn will pay seignorage fee at the rate prescribed in the Rule 10 duly maintaining round the clock check point. Though the petitioner contends that he is entitled to the grant of temporary permit as per the provisions of Rule 9-M(2) of the Rules, the fact remains that the temporary permits under Rule 9-M(2) shall be issued only to M/s. Andhra Pradesh Mineral Development Corporation Limited for a period not exceeding sixty (60) days, in cases of exigency and that too, with the approval of the Government. Admittedly, the petitioner is a private contractor, and having regard to Rule 9-M(2) of the Rules, which empowers grant of temporary licence only to M/s. Andhra Pradesh Mineral Development Corporation, he cannot have any grievance for not considering his application for grant of temporary permit nor can he ask for such a relief from the respondents nor can this Court direct the respondents to issue temporary permit to the petitioner in terms of Rule 9-M(2) of the Rules. Hence, the writ petition is misconceived, and the same is accordingly dismissed. However, the respondents are directed to expedite the conduct of the auction proceedings. No costs. ______________ N.V.RAMANA, J 10th July, 2009 bcj