IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.21568 OF 2006 Between: Mulakala Veera Raghavulu. … Petitioner AND The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary of Panchayat Raj Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and three others. … Respondents 2. WRIT PETITION No.20371 OF 2006 Between: Mulakala Veera Raghavulu. … Petitioner AND The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary of Panchayat Raj Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and three others. … Respondents 3. WRIT PETITION No.23926 OF 2006 Between: Mulakala Veera Raghavulu. … Petitioner AND The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary of Panchayat Raj Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and three others. … Respondents This Court made the following: C O M M O N O R D E R : These three writ petitions are filed by the Sarpanch of Kota Gram Panchayat, K.Gangavaram Mandal, East Godavari District, aggrieved by the three sand quarry auction notices dated 17-09-2006, 26-10-2006 and 05-10-2006 respectively issued by the District Panchayat Officer, East Godavari District, to the extent Kota Gram Panchayat was not included therein, in respect of Reach No.11, Package No.5, from Ramp 42.800 to 48.600. He seeks a consequential direction to the respondent authorities to pay seigniorage fee to Kota Gram Panchayat, as per its entitlement. 2. The District Panchayat Officer, East Godavari District, filed his counter stating that an agreement was executed between Kulla, Kotipalli, Masakapalli and Kota Gram Panchayats for apportioning the seigniorage amount garnered from the quarrying of sand. This agreement was arrived at in the presence of the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, East Godavari and as per the same, the petitioner Gram Panchayat is entitled to 20% of the seigniorage amount payable to the Gram Panchayats. He further stated that after the issuance of notifications in the year 2006, the amount payable to Kota Gram Panchayat was being duly paid. Details are furnished with regard to the payments made to the petitioner Gram Panchayat for the years 2007-08, 2008- 09, 2009-10 and 2010-11. He conceded that the name of the petitioner Gram Panchayat was not included in the three auction notifications which are the subject matter of these writ petitions. He however undertook that Kota Gram Panchayat would be included when notifications were issued in the future. 3. Sri Mummaneni Srinivasa Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner Gram Panchayat, stated that in the light of the stand of the District Panchayat Officer, East Godavari, the writ petitions may be closed duly recording the fact that the authorities undertook to protect the petitioner Gram Panchayat’s interest in future notifications, which was its main grievance. 4. The Writ Petitions are accordingly closed recording the aforestated stand put forth in the counter of the District Panchayat Officer, East Godavari. In the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J Date: 15-04-2011. KVS THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR Writ Petition.Nos.23926, 21568 and 20371 of2006 (Disposed of. No costs) April 15, 2011. Kvs.