THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI MADAN B. LOKUR AND THE HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL NO.1397 OF 2011 DATED:27.12.2011 Between: Banda Satish Babu and another … Appellants And The Government of Andhra Pradesh Industries & Commerce (SPIU & Sand) Department Secretariat, Hyderabad, rep. by its Principal Secretary and others … Respondents THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI MADAN B. LOKUR AND THE HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL NO.1397 OF 2011 JUDGMENT: (per the Hon’ble the Chief Justice Shri Madan B. Lokur) The appellants are aggrieved by an order dt.20.12.2011 passed by the learned single Judge in W.P. No.33570 of 2011. 2. It appears that the Andhra Pradesh Mineral Development Corporation Limited (APMDC) was granted a temporary permit on 19.11.2011 to lift sand for a quantity of 8741.52 cubic meters over an extent of Ac.1.44 cents in Sy. No.151 in Chirravaru Village, Tadepalli Mandal, Guntur District. 3. The temporary permit was valid for a period of sixty days and was issued under the provisions of Rule 9-M of the Andhra Pradesh Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966 (for short, ‘the Rules’). 4. Rule 9-M of the Rules postulates the grant of a temporary permit pending finalization of auctions. 5. According to learned counsel for the appellants, the temporary permit granted to the APMDC is in effect a temporary permit granted to the pattadar of the land and this should not have been done without a public auction. 6. We are not in agreement with learned counsel for the appellants in this regard. The permit is clearly a temporary permit and has been given to the APMDC for the purposes of lifting sand. The APMDC may utilize the services of a pattadar but that does not mean that the permit has been given to the pattadar. 7. According to learned counsel for the appellants, the respondents have no intention of auctioning the site under the Rules. In our opinion, no such presumption can be made and in fact there is no averment to this effect in the writ petition or at least none has been pointed out to us by learned counsel. 8. The learned single Judge found that under these circumstances the appellants have no locus standi to challenge the grant of a temporary permit to the APMDC. We find no reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned single Judge. 9. We may note that more than half the period of the temporary permit is already over and interference at this stage would not serve any purpose. 10. The writ appeal is dismissed. Miscellaneous application is also dismissed. __________________ MADAN B. LOKUR, CJ _______________ SANJAY KUMAR, J 27-12-2011 bnr