IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.29215 of 2009 Between: Ch. Madhusudhan Reddy … Petitioner And The Asst. Director of Mines & Geology, Nandigama, Krishna District & another. … Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri G. Raja Babu for Smt. N. Shoba Counsel for respondent No.1: AGP for Mines & Geology The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.29215 of 2009 ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the action of respondent No.2 in interfering with the transportation of sand from Pollampalli sand reach of Vatsavai Mandal, Krishna District, as illegal and arbitrary. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader representing respondent No.1. There is no representation for respondent No.2. The petitioner is a successful bidder in the auction held for Pollampalli reach of Krishna River. A lease deed was entered on 23.11.2009 with the Assistant Director of Mines and Geology for a period of two years, which is valid up to 31.03.2001. It is averred that respondent No.2, represented by its Sarpanch, is stopping the vehicles passing through the Indugupalli R&B road on the ground that seigniorage fee payable to the Gram Panchayat is not received and that therefore the vehicles cannot pass through their panchayat. This purported action is challenged in this writ petition. A counter affidavit is filed by respondent No.1, wherein it is inter alia stated that a condition is prescribed for mode of transportation of sand by the petitioner and that as per the said condition the petitioner has to transport the sand from Khammam road, but not on the Indugupalli Gram Panchayat roads. It is further stated that keeping in view certain difficulties to be faced in future, Indugupalli Village R&B road shall also be used for transportation by passing through Kanneveedu and Chityala R&B roads, but in view of existence of a local problem, the mode of transportation is specifically prescribed in notification dated 26.10.2009 and also in the grant order and that the petitioner has agreed for the said condition by executing the lease deed. It is further stated that the petitioner has not even informed respondent No.1 about the interference by the Sarpanch of respondent No.2 Gram Panchayat. No reply affidavit is filed controverting the above averments contained in the counter affidavit. In the face of the condition stipulated in the notification and also in the grant order, as averred by respondent No.1, permitting the petitioner to use a particular road, he cannot raise a grievance if he has deviated from the specified route and respondent No.2 is causing obstruction to him. If the petitioner has a legitimate grievance in this regard, he can only approach respondent No.1. In such an event, respondent No.1 shall consider the petitioner’s grievance and take appropriate action in accordance with law. Subject to the above observation, the writ petition is dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, WPMP.No.37850 of 2009 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is also dismissed. __________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 14.07.2010. ES