IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT APPEAL No.1604 of 2008 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 21/10/2008 in WP NO : 22324 OF 2008 on the file of the High Court.) Between: 1 The Nellore Sand Quarry Owners Association, rep. by its President T.Ashok Reddy S/o. Bala Krishna Reddy R/o.Nellore District. ..... APPELLANT AND 1 Sri S., Sudhakar Raju S/o. Venkata Subba Raju R/o. H.No.4/6, Isukapalli Village, M.G. Puram Post, Rajampet Mandal, Kadapa Dist. 2 D. Ramachandraiah S/o. Late Venkatesh R/o. D.No.24-1-274, Besta Palem, Rajagari Street, Moolapet, Nellore. 3 P. Siva Sankar Reddy S/o. P. Myram Reddy R/o. Nandalur Village & Mandal, Kadapa Dist. 4 The Government of A.P. rep. by its Secretary, Industries and Commerce (SPIU & SAND) Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 5 The Director, Mines & Geology, 8th floor, BRKR Bhavan, Tank Bund, Hyderabad. 6 The Assistant Director of Mines and Geology, Nellore, Nellore District. 7 The Joint Collector cum Chairman of the District Level Sand Committee, Nellore, Nellore District. .....RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Appellant : SMT. N.SHOBA Counsel for the Respondent No.1 to 3: Sri V.L. SURENDRA Counsel for the respondent Nos.4 to 7: GP FOR INDUSTRIES & COMMERCE The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R. VARMA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH WRIT APPEAL No.1604 of 2008 ORAL JUDGMENT: (per the Hon’ble Sri Justice D.S.R.Varma) Heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant-The Nellore Sand Quarry Owners Association as well as the learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3-writ petitioners and also the learned Government Pleader for Industries and Commerce appearing for respondent Nos.4 to 7. 2. This writ appeal is directed against the order, dated 21-10-2008, passed by a learned single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.22324 of 2008. 3. Appellant is a third party to the writ petition and the respondents herein are writ petitioners and respondents in the writ petition. 4. For the sake of convenience, in this judgment, the parties will be referred to as per their array in the writ petition. 5. The facts that led to filing of this writ appeal, in brief, are as under: The Assistant Director of Mines and Geology, Nellore, the third respondent, issued a tender notification No.864/Q/2008-II, dated 15-09-2008, proposing to conduct auction of lease hold rights for sand quarry in seven reaches in Penna River. The last date for submission of tenders was fixed as 03-10-2008 and the petitioners were the prospective participants in the auction. It is their contention that even before the expiry of the last date for submission of tenders, the first respondent had issued a Memo, dated 01-10-2008, directing stay of auction notification, dated 15- 09-2008. Challenging the said Memo, the petitioners have filed W.P.No.22324 of 2008. 6. The learned single Judge, through the impugned order, dated 21- 10-2008, disposed of the said writ petition directing the first respondent to dispose of the matter pending before it duly ensuring that the auction for grant of leases is conducted before the expiry of existing leases. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant-Association has preferred the present writ appeal. 7. Obviously, the above direction was issued by the learned single Judge in view of the fact on record that the existing leases would expire on the notified date, as mentioned in the tender notification itself. Therefore, it appears that the learned single Judge was of the view that after the period of leases is expired, fresh leases have to be granted, by way of calling fresh tenders. However, it was pointed out by the learned single Judge that the reasons for staying the auction proceedings, as was originally scheduled on 06-10-2008, were not coming forth. Therefore, the writ petition was disposed of with the above direction. 8. Now, it is the grievance of the learned counsel for the appellant- Association that the Association was not heard by the learned single Judge before passing the impugned order. 9. At the outset, this objection cannot be sustained. The learned single Judge had disposed of the writ petition after hearing the parties to the writ petition. 10. Further, the learned single Judge was not aware of the fact, nor was informed about the fact, that the appellant-Association had any interest in the adjudication of the writ petition. Therefore, when the appellant-Association was not a party to the writ petition, there was no occasion for the learned single Judge to go into the aspect of interest of the appellant-Association in the dispute and pass orders on imaginary grounds that the appellant-Association has substantial interest in the matter. Therefore, basing on the contentions raised by the parties in the writ petition, the learned single Judge had passed the impugned order. 11. Further more, if at all the appellant-Association is aggrieved by the impugned order passed by the learned single Judge, it is always open to file an appeal against the impugned order, with the leave of the Court, and seek redressal of its grievance in an appropriate manner, what is precisely done by the appellant-Association in the present case. When a petition is filed by the appellant-Association seeking leave of this Court to file an appeal against the impugned order, the same had been ordered and now the appellant-Association had come on record as the respondent. 12. When the matter is taken up for admission, learned counsel for the appellant-Association contended that conducting of auction, as was originally scheduled, itself is contrary to Rule 9-B of the Andhra Pradesh Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966. 13. Of course, the learned single Judge has not gone into the said aspect. But, as already pointed out, there was no occasion for the learned single Judge to go into the aspect of the interest of the appellant- Association, inasmuch as, the appellant-Association was not a party to the writ petition. 14. Even now, for the purpose of going into the aspect of violation of any Statutory provisions or the prejudice caused or likely to be caused to the appellant-Association, this Court has to necessarily take the other facts into consideration. 15. At this juncture, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned Government Pleader had brought to the notice of this Court about the subsequent developments that had taken place, pursuant to the impugned order, dated 21-10-2008, passed by the learned single Judge, by way of issuing a Memo No.15410/SPIU & SAND/2008-1, dated 14-11- 2008, by the first respondent, vacating the orders, dated 01-10-2008, issued staying the auction process. The said Memo dated 14-11-2008 is made part of the record. 16. For the sake of convenience and ready reference, the Memo dated 14-11-2008, to the extent relevant, is extracted hereunder: “In view of the Hon’ble High Court orders in W.P.No.22324 of 2008, dated: 21-10-2008, Government here by vacate the stay orders issued in the reference third cited with a view to continue the auction process vide auction notification No.864/Q/2008-II, dated:15-9-2008 issued by A.D.M.G., Nellore. The Assistant Director of Mines & Geology, Nellore is requested to continue the auction process as per the earlier notification, before expiry of existing leases i.e., before 17-11-2008.” 17. From the above, it is abundantly clear that pursuant to the impugned order, dated 21-10-2008, passed by the learned single Judge, the proceedings, dated 01-10-2008, passed by the Government staying the auction process was vacated, thereby facilitating the auction process for grant of sand quarry leases to go on. 18. Therefore, there is no need for this Court, particularly at the appellate stage, to go into the subsequent developments that had taken place by way of issuance of Memo dated 14-11-2008 by the first respondent. 19. It appears that the subsequent development of issuance of Memo dated 14-11-2008 is not in the knowledge of the appellant-Association. In fact, the date of Memo and the date on which the present writ appeal has been presented are almost simultaneous. 20. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that the said Memo, dated 14-11-2008, and the consequent notification, dated 19-11-2008, were challenged in W.P.No.25726 of 2008 and the same is pending before this Court. 21. Therefore, in view of the fact that pursuant to the impugned order passed by the learned single Judge, the Memo, dated 14-11-2008, issued by the first respondent and the notification, dated 19- 11-2008, were put to challenge and pending consideration in W.P.No.25726 of 2008, it is inexpedient for this Court to go into any further details or merits of the case, nor there is any valid reason to interfere with the impugned order, dated 21-10-2008, passed by the learned single Judge. 22. Accordingly, the writ appeal is closed, at the stage of admission. It is needless to mention that the appellant-Association can agitate all its rights in W.P.No.25726 of 2008, which is pending for consideration before this Court. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA __________________________ JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH 11-12-2008. Msr. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R. VARMA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH WRIT APPEAL No.1604 of 2008 11-12-2008 (Msr)