THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU W.P.No.13549 of 2008 ORAL ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking a Mandamus declaring the action of the first respondent in granting sand lease on nomination basis in favour of sixth respondent vide Memo No.2560/SPIU & Sand/2008-1 dated 5.3.2008 and consequential proceedings of third respondent dated 15.3.2008 in permitting sixth respondent to lift 80,000 M3 of sand from Manjeera River of Kodicherla village, Kotagiri mandal, Nizamabad district for a period of one year from 15.3.2008 to 14.3.2009, without conducting auction as required under law, as arbitrary, illegal, violative of principles of natural justice and contrary to A.P. Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966. It appears, as early as in the year 2001, a notification was issued by the fourth respondent-District Level Sand Committee for conducting public auction and the sixth respondent was declared as highest bidder for Kodicherla Sand Reach and the same was confirmed vide proceedings No.D/638/2001 dated 6.4.2001 by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Bodhan and the sixth respondent was directed to deposit 75% of balance amount within seven days. Since the sixth respondent failed to deposit the balance amount of 75% within time and failed to execute the agreement bond, 25% amount paid was forfeited to the Government vide proceedings of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Bodhan dated 4.6.2001. Thus, the auction held in the year 2001 was cancelled and the amount paid was forfeited and that attained finality. According to the petitioner, eight (8) years thereafter, particularly after the procedure of auctioning of sand was withdrawn from Panchayat Raj Department and transferred to Industries and Commerce Department vide G.O.Ms.No.24 dated 12.2.2007, the present impugned order had been passed granting lease in favour of sixth respondent for a period of one year. According to the petitioner, neither any auction was conducted nor clearance from the Ground Water Department was obtained for the purpose of granting lease. Further, it is stated that had the authorities conducted public auction, it would have fetch more revenue to the Government. A detailed counter affidavit has been filed by fifth respondent stating that the sixth respondent, after paying Rs.64,000/-, made several representations and failed to remit the balance amount of Rs.1,92,000/-, and such representations were placed before the District Level Sand Committee, but no decision was taken in that regard. However, after lapse of (8) years, sixth respondent made a representation to the Director of Mines and Geology, Hyderabad, the District Collector, Nizamabad and the Assistant Director of Mines and Geology, Nizamabad requesting them to accord permission to lift the sand as he was denied in the year 2001 due to resolution of Gram Panchayat and failure of officials at that time to intervene in the matter. Since there was no response, he approached this Court by way of W.P.No.22609 of 2007 and this Court disposed of the said writ petition directing the Assistant Director of Mines and Geology, Nizamabad to dispose of the representation of the petitioner dated 21.9.2007 in accordance with law. Therefore, the matter was referred to the District Level Sand Committee and the District Level Sand Committee in its meeting held on 9.2.2008 resolved to grant permission in favour of sixth respondent after collecting advance seigniorage fee of Rs.28,80,000/- for one year. The proposal was submitted to the Director of Mines and Geology, who in turn recommended to the Government. The Government after careful examination of the said proposal and the decision taken by the District Level Sand Committee, Nizamabad and in exercise of powers conferred under Rule 9-K(3) of A.P. Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966 (for short ‘Rules’) accorded permission in favour of sixth respondent vide G.O.Ms.No.84, Industries and Commerce Department dated 10.4.2007 for lifting sand to a tune of 80,000 M3 from Manjeera River of Kodicherla village, Kotagiri mandal, Nizamabad district for a period of one year from the date of execution subject to the condition of sixth respondent paying advance seigniorage fee of Rs.28,80,000/- (Rs.36/- per cubic metre) and on paying the differential amount in case the other quarry lease in Nizamabad district, which are equal in quantity with that of Kodicherla sand quarry (80,000 M3) are auctioned higher in forthcoming auctions. Thus, there is no truth in petitioner’s contention that the impugned order is contrary to Rules since the Government had granted permission under Rule 9-K(3) of Rules, which contemplates that the Government shall have the power to issue orders/clarifications, if any, not specifically mentioned in implementation of these rules. As the case of sixth respondent was not covered by the rules framed under G.O.Ms.No.84 dated 10.4.2007, the State Government had clarified the same and permitted sixth respondent to quarry for one year. The sixth respondent also filed a detailed counter denying the allegations made by the petitioner reiterating the stand taken by the Government. Further, it is stated that the auctions were not held under A.P. Panchayat Raj (Auctioning of Sand in the Water courses vesting in the Gram Panchayat) Rules, 2000. Auctions were conducted in terms of G.O.Ms.No.1, Industries and Commerce Department dated 1.1.2001. As per Rule 9-B of A.P. Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966, Government proposed to amend the Rules vide G.O.Ms.No.24 dated 12.2.2007. Auctions held by the District Level Committee under G.O.Ms.No.1 dated 1.1.2001 were transferred to the Department of Mines. Hence the file of Kodicherla which was pending with the District Level Committee for want of ground water clearance was forwarded to the Assistant Director of Mines and Geology. Further, in view of the directions issued by this Court in W.P.No.22609 of 2007, one year lease was granted and the same is going to expire by the end of March, 2009. Heard all the parties concerned. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner has not participated in the auction. May be, he filed application seeking temporary permit, but the same was rejected. The petitioner, except stating that the auction conducted in the year 2001 had been cancelled and that attained finality, and contrary to the same, sixth respondent was granted quarry lease for one year for a paltry sum of Rs.28,80,000/- for lifting 80,000 cubic metre of sand and in fact it would have fetched more money, the petitioner has not given any details as to what exactly the amount that would have fetched in a public auction conducted nor it is his case that the amount as fixed by the Government for each cubic metre was not given effect to in this nomination. It appears from the facts that earlier the District Level Sand Committee, Panchayat Raj Department was looking after the auction and thereafter there was a change in the policy and it was entrusted to Industries Department. In the meanwhile, the auction held in the year 2001 knocked down in favour of sixth respondent was not finalized in view of certain developments as to objection taken by the Gram Panchayat and non-availability of clearance from the Ground Water department. Therefore, sixth respondent made representations to the authorities and since the same were not yielded any result, he filed W.P.No.22609 of 2007 and this Court disposed of the said writ petition directing the Assistant Director of Mines and Geology, Nizamabad to consider the representation and on the basis of the same and on the recommendation of the District Level Sand Committee and in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the sixth respondent was granted lease for one year on payment of advance seigniorage fee of Rs.28,80,000/- for extracting 80,000 cubic metres of sand. As of today, 10 months period has already been elapsed and the lease period is going to expire by 31.3.2009. The petitioner has not made out any case as to the fact that the lease granted in favour of sixth respondent was for a paltry sum of Rs.28,80,000/-. On the other hand, the learned Government Pleader brought to the notice of the Court that the Government has fixed the maximum price per cubic metre is at Rs.36/- and in this case, the same rate has been applied for lifting 80,000 cubic metres. Under those circumstances, I am of the opinion that the allegations made by the petitioner does not inspire the confidence of Court to interfere into the impugned order passed by the respondents. This is only a speculative litigation and does not call for any interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. _____________ C.V.RAMULU, J Date: 3.2.2009 Note: Issue C.C. in one week. B/o DA THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU W.P.No.13549 of 2008 3.2.2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION NO : 13549 of 2008 Between: M.Anil Reddy, S/o. Ganga Reddy, R/o. Kodicharala, Kotagiri Mandal, Nizamabad District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The State of Andhra Pradesh, Secretary, Industries, & Commercie Dept. Secretariate, Hyderabad. 2 The Director of Mines & Geology, BRKR Building, Tankbund Road, Hyderabad. 3 The District Collector, Nizamabad District. 4 The Joint Collector & Chairman, District Level Sand Committee, Nizamabad District. 5 The Asst. Director of Mines & Geology, Nizamabad, Nizamabad District. 6 S.Eravanth Rao, S/o. Baswanth Rao, R./o. H.No.1-21, Karegaon village, Kotagiri Mandal, Nizamabad 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 to issue an appropriate writ or order or direction, one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, i) declaring the proceedings vide Memo No.2560/SPIU SAND/2008-1, DT. 5-3-2008 of the 1st respondent and consequential proceedings vide proceedings No.925/SAND/2007, 15-3- 2008 of 5th respondent, as arbitrry illegal, violative of principles of natural justice, without jurisdiction and violative of Art. 14 of Constitution of India and the same may be set aside. ii) costs be awarded and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.PANNALA.SRINIVAS Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR MINES AND GEOLOGY The Court made the following :