IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY FRIDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TEN WRIT PETITION No.1985 of 2006 Between: Pasupuleti Prasad, S/o.Ramarao, Aged about 43 years, R/o.Amaravathi Village and Mandal, Guntur District. … Petitioner And The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Panchayat Raj Department, Rep.by its Secretary, Secretariat Building, Hyderabad, And others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : Sri C.V.R.Rudra Prasad Counsel for the respondents: G.P for Panchayat Raj Sri K.Raghuveer Reddy Sri M.Prabhakar Rao G.P for Irrigation This Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.1985 of 2006 ORDER: This writ petition is filed for the following substantive relief. For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, the petitioner herein prays 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 order of the 3rd respondent dated 6.12.2005 in Roc.No.675/2005 G2 in confirming the auction and further action of the 2nd respondent in executing lease deed in favour of 7th respondent in respect of Reach No.12 at Vaikuntapuram Village limits, Amaravathi Mandal, Guntur District, pursuant to the auction notification dated 31.10.2005, made in Rc.No.675/2005-G2, as malafide, arbitrary, illegal, colourable exercise of power, discriminatory, for extraneous considerations, violative of principles of natural justice, promissory estoppel, non-application of mind and contrary to the Rules made under the A.P.Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966, apart from being violative of the Fundamental Rights guaranteed under Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India and consequently set aside the lease granted in favour of the 7th respondent, while directing the respondents 1 to 6 to grant the leasehold rights to quarry sand from Reach No.12 at Vaikuntapuram Village limits, Amaravathi Mandal, Guntur District in favour of the petitioner as he is the highest bidder in the public auction held on 17.11.2005 and pass such other order or orders as are deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. At the hearing, Sri Muninder Reddy, representing learned Counsel for the petitioner Sri C.V.R.Rudra Prasad, submits that the cause in the writ petition does not survive for adjudication. In view of the submission of the learned Counsel, the writ petition is dismissed as infructuous. As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.9126 of 2006 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is also disposed of as infructuous. _____________________________ C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 30.07.2010 vs