THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO.8281 OF 2010 Dated 15th April, 2010 Between: Sand Quarry Boatsmen and Fishermen Cooperative Society Ltd …Petitioner And The Government of Andhra Pradesh and three others …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : Sri I.Gopala Reddy Counsel for the respondents: AGP for Mines and Geology The Court made the following ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in issuing notification dated 04.04.2010, for conducting fresh auction of leasehold rights of sand in respect of Package No.11 of Vynatheya Right Bank, as arbitrary and contrary to Rule 9-I of the Andhra Pradesh Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966 (for short “the Rules”). The petitioner is a successful tenderer for leasehold rights of sand in the auction conducted by respondent No.4 on 15.12.2008 for Package No.11. Though the petitioner complied with the terms and conditions, the auction, in its favour, could not be confirmed by respondents 2 and 3 in view of the interim stay granted by this Court on 15.12.2008 in W.P.No.27145 of 2008. The petitioner claimed to have impleaded itself in the said writ petition and got the interim stay vacated on 12.06.2009. Thereafter, respondent No.3 issued order dated 17.06.2009 confirming the auction in favour of the petitioner and directed it to pay the balance amount. Accordingly, the petitioner paid Rs.4,93,351/- in proportion to the leftover period of 98 days available before the expiry of the first year lease and accordingly, lease deed was executed on 20.06.2009. In pursuance of letter dated 23.11.2009 addressed by respondent No.2, the petitioner paid the proportionate lease amount of Rs.15,64,160/- for 187 days towards second year lease up to 31.03.2010. The petitioner was accordingly permitted to carry on the mining operations till the said date. The respondents thereafter issued the impugned tender notification calling for fresh tenders. The petitioner assailed the said order in this writ petition on the ground that due to no fault on its part, it was denied the benefit of carrying on mining operations for substantial period and that as it was permitted to operate the sand quarry only for a period of 98 days during the first year, the respondents are bound to extend the lease of the second year to the extent of the lost days during the first year. At the hearing, Sri I.Gopal Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, placed reliance on Rule 9-I (2) of the Rules in support of the above contention of the petitioner. I have carefully considered the said Rule, which inter alia provides that the lease period shall commence with effect from the date of the execution of the lease deed. In my opinion, this provision does not support the case of the petitioner that the respondents are bound to extend the lease period, if for any reason it is not permitted to operate the sand lease for the full period of two years. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Mines and Geology placed reliance on Rule 9-L of the Rules, which reads as under:- “9-L.Penal Clause:-The successful tenderer or bidder shall have no claims for any compensation due to floods or heavy rains or any other situation and extension of the lease period shall not be granted under any circumstances.” (Emphasis added) The abovementioned Rule inter alia clearly envisages that under no circumstances, extension of lease period shall be granted. While it is true that the petitioner cannot be blamed for not operating the sand mine for a substantial period during the first year, the said fact, however, does not entitle it to seek extension of lease period in view of the unequivocal prohibition contained in Rule 9-L of the Rules. Significantly while collecting the lease amount for the second year, the respondents, conscious of the fact that the lease period will come to an end by 31.03.2010, calculated the lease amount proportionate to the period of 187 days and not for the entire 12 months and accordingly collected the lease amount. Having carefully considered the facts of the case in the light of Rule 9-L, I am of the opinion that the respondents have not committed any illegality in not extending the lease period in favour of the petitioner and in seeking to grant fresh lease by issuing the impugned tender notification. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of main petition, WPMP No.10675 of 2010 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dated 15th April, 2010 vrn