IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO:20518 of 2005 Between: Sri Ashoka Reddy, s/o Sri Balakrsihna Reddy, r/o Pothireddypalem, Kovvuru Mandal, Nellore District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The District Panchayat Officer, Nellore, Nellore District, A.P. 2 The District Level Committee for Sand Leases, Nellore District, represented by its Chairman and Chairman of the Zilla Parishad, Nellore, Nellore District, A.P. 3 Sri Vemireddy Ayyappa Reddy, s/o Anjaneyulu, r/o Devarapalem, Nellore Rural Mandal, Nellore District, A.P. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:MR. P.RAMAKRISHNA FOR MR.S.SRINIVAS REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ & RURAL DEV. The Court made the following : ORDER: At the interlocutory stage, the writ petition is taken up for hearing and disposal with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. This writ petition is filed for the following substantive relief: “It is therefore prayed that this Hon’ble Court may 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 2nd respondent in resolving by resolution, dated 24.8.2005, to grant the lease to quarry sand from the Reach at Minagallu Butchireddypalem in Penna River, to the 3rd respondent by accepting 20% over and above the highest bid of Rs.4,10,500/- in the auction conducted on 8.7.2004 pursuant to tender cum auction notice No.650/03-A3, dated 16.6.2004, even though by representation dated 24.8.2005 I had offered 30% amount over and above the highest bid of Rs.4,10,500/- as highly arbitrary, illegal, unjust, violative of the Fundamental Rights guaranteed under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and also violative of the principles of natural justice and issue a consequential direction to respondents 1 and 2 to grant the lease to quarry sand in my favour by accepting the offer made by me in my representation, dated 24.8.2005.” At the hearing, Sri P.Ramakrishna, learned counsel representing Sri S.Srinivas Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the cause in the writ petition does not survive for consideration. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed as infructuous. As a sequel to dismissal of main petition as infructuous, WWPMP.No.26170 of 2005 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 3rd JULY, 2008. kvni