THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD W.P.No.8348 of 2010 ORDER: (Per Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed, J) The petitioner states that the third respondent issued a paper publication, dated 26.08.2009, proposing to conduct auction for excavation of sand in the river Pennar in Nellore District, for two years i.e., for the first year from 01.04.2009 to 31.03.2010 and for the second year from 01.04.2010 to 31.03.2011. As per the schedule given in the said notification, the auction to be held for three reaches, namely, Reach No.28 of Pothireddypalem of Kovuru Mandal, for an amount of Rs.35,59,000/-for 12 months; Reach No.30 of Zonnawada Reach of Butchireddypalem, for an amount of Rs.27,64,000/-for 12 months and Reach No.41 of Minagallu Reach of Butchireddy Palem Mandal, for an amount of Rs.10,63,000/- for 12 months. In the said auction, 6th, 7th and 8th respondents became the highest bidders for Mimapallu, Jonnawada and Pothireddy Palem Reaches respectively. The petitioner also states that due to irregular excavation of sand, not only the public but also the agricultural activities and ecology are affecting seriously and that for the said three reaches, the Ground Water Department has not given any feasibility report positively for sand mining for the year 2010-2011 and therefore, without complying the provisions under Andhra Pradesh Water Land and Trees Authority (APWALTA) Act, 2002 (for short ‘the Act’) and the Rules made thereunder, the respondents are granting lease to respondents 6 to 8. Hence, he filed the present writ petition assailing the action of respondents 1 to 3 in allowing respondents 6 to 8 for excavation of sand from the above said three reaches. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader for Mines and Geology for respondents 1 to 3, Sri A. Sanjeev Kumar, learned counsel for respondents 6 and 7 and Sri C.V.Rudra Prasad, learned counsel for respondent No.8. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the official respondents without obtaining the clearance certificate from the Director, Ground Water Department, are granting mining lease in favour of the unofficial respondents by violating the provisions of the Act. He further contended that due to irregular excavation of sand quarries, the people at Nellore District are suffering from scarcity of water, especially in summer. He contended that as per the amendment made to Sub-rule 6 of Rule 9-B of the Andhra Pradesh Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966 (for short ‘the Rules’) vide G.O.Ms.No.6 dated 29.01.2010, the second respondent is the competent authority to conduct auction of sand, but not the third respondent. He further contended that the respondents have not declared the area, which was auctioned, as overexploited for a period not more than six months and they have violated the provisions of Section 11 of the Act. 4. The learned Government Pleader for Mines and Geology contended that though the said amendment was made, it has not become operative and effective and that as per Sub-rule 6 of Rule 9-B of the Rules, the second respondent-District Level committee shall be the competent authority to decide the issues mentioned therein on the proposals received from the Assistant Director of Mines and Geology concerned. He further contended that before conducting auction, the authorities concerned have made a joint inspection of the sand reaches in question and approved the same for two years and accordingly, they obtained permission from the Ground Water Department as required under the Act. He further contended that as per Section 11 of the Act, the area, which was auctioned, is not a particular ground water basin to declare as overexploited and no such declaration is necessary. 5. Sri A. Sanjeev Kumar, learned counsel for respondents 6 and 7 and Sri C.V.Rudra Prasad, learned counsel for respondent No.8 contended that the official respondents after obtaining necessary permissions from the authorities concerned have conducted the auction and that pursuant to the auction, lease has been granted in favour of respondents 6 to 8 for two years. 6. Sub-rule(1) of Rule 9-B of the Rules reads as under: “All the sand bearing areas in the State shall be leased out by Sealed Tender cum Public Auction Reach or Mandal wise whereever applicable by the Auctioning Authority as specified under rule 9-H(1) financial year wise in any case not more than 2 years with an yearly enhancement of 20% of the knocked down amount and subject to the conditions prescribed in the notice of Sealed Tender cum Public Auction as prescribed in Rule 9-D and subject to approval of the District Level Committee as specified under sub-rule (5). However, with the approval of the District Level Committee duly recording its reasons in writing, a village or a group of villages can independently be auctioned by the Auctioning Authority. Sub-rule (6) of Rule 9-B of the Rules, reads as under: “The District Level Committee shall be the Competent Authority to decide the following issues on the proposals received from the Assistant Director of Mines & Geology concerned, duly obtaining the necessary reports/clearance from the Conservator of River and the Director, Ground Water Department that- (i) To identify the Reaches or Mandals to be leased out for conduct of auction. (ii) To fix up minimum bid amount by taking following points into consideration- (a) Availability of sand in terms of quantity, (b) Demand, supply, prevailing concessions for transportation of sand by Bullock carts, animals, sand consumed by weaker section housing schemes, and (c) Average knocked down bid amount for the last 3 years. (iii) To club/sub divide the Reaches wherever necessary. (iv) To fix the sale price at pit head before notification by considering the following points,-- (a) Seigniorage fee, Sales Tax, Income Tax and other taxes, if any applicable during the course of lease period. (b) Location, demand and supply. (c) Marginal profit to be collected by the knocked down bidder/tenderer. (d) Loading and formation or laying of ramps or roads in the Reach or Mandal. It is not in dispute that as per Sub-rule (1) of 9-B of the Rules, the official respondents have conducted auction for excavation of sand in respect of three reaches mentioned above, for a period of two years, and obtained Ground Water clearance Certificate from the Deputy Director, Ground Water Department, Nellore, for the sand reaches mentioned in the letter dated 05.03.2010 furnished to the petitioner under Right to Information Act, 2005. In the said letter, it was mentioned that for ground water clearance, a joint inspection was conducted by the authorities concerned and they approved the same. Though as per the amendment made to Sub-rule 6 of Rule 9-B of the Rules, the second respondent is the competent authority to decide the issues mentioned therein, learned Government Pleader states that it has not been implemented and that Section 11 of the Act is not attracted, as there is no need to declare the area as overexploited. Be that as it may, the official respondents after following due procedure as contemplated under the Act and the Rules made thereunder have conducted auction and granted mining lease in favour of the unofficial respondents. Therefore, we are of the opinion that there is no need to interfere with the action of the official respondents in allowing the unofficial respondents for excavation of sand from the reaches in question. 7. The Writ Petition fails, and is, accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs. ____________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, ____________________ G.BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date:16.04.2010 sj