IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION NO : 11946 of 2008 Between: The Vallabhapuram Gram Panchayat Rep.by its Sarpanch Gade Venkatappa Reddy Nagi Reddy Vallabhapuram Gram Panchayat Vallabhapuram Kollipara(M) Guntur District ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Governement of Andhra Pradesh Rep.by its Secretary Industries and Commerce(MI) Dept Secretariat,Hyderabad 2 The Government of Andhra Pradesh Rep.by its Secretary Irregation &CAD Department, Secretariat,Hyderabad 3 The District Level Committee For Sand Auctions Guntur District Rep.by its Chairman-Cum-Joint Collector Guntur District Guntur 4 The Director Department of Mines and Geology Burgula Rama Krishna Rao Bhavan Tank Bund Hyderabad 5 The Assistant Director of Mines & Geology Govt of Andhra Pradesh,Guntur District 6 Executive Engineer Krishna Canal Division Govt of A.P Irrigation & CAD Department Vijayawada Krishna District 7 Y.Sambasiva Rao S/o.Basavaiah Flat No.403 Vijaya Soudha Apartments High School Road Patamata,Vijayawada Krishna 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 a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ,order or direction declaring the impugned action of the 6th respondent through its letter No.DB/TO 432 M dt.30-4-2008 addressed 5th respondent recommending grant of permission to 7th respondent to ply his vehicles on the flood bank in between KM 22.400 and bridge point and to utilise the existing ramp at KM 22.400 on the certain conditions as being contrary and violative to the lease conditions as granted in 5th respondent proceedings No.70/Sand/2008(R-5) dt.23-02-2008 without authority and jurisdiction and causing damage to the Flood Bank Bridge and being detirment to the interests of the Villages including petitioner arbitary and violative of principles of natural jsutice and etc and consequently set aside the proceedings No.DB/JTO 432M Dt.432 dt.30-4-2008 of the 6th Respondent and cancel the lease granted to the 7th respondent through proc No.702/Sand/2008/R-5 dt/23-02-2008 of the 5th respondent for having illegally used the Flood Bank Bridge till dt for quarrying against the santion and damage to public property adn general public including Villagers of the petitioners panchayat and grant such other just and consequential relief or reliefs Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.N.V.ANANTHA KRISHNA Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR IRRIGATION & COMM AREA DEV. The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION NO : 11946 of 2008 ORAL ORDER: This writ petition is directed against the recommendation by the 5th respondent to the 6th respondent proposing grant of permission to the 7th respondent for using a new ramp at 21.55 K.M. i.e., adjacent to Vallabhapuram village in Guntur district for the purpose of enabling the 7th respondent to use the said ramp for the purpose of transport of sand for which the 7th respondent has a current sand quarry lease. The 7th respondent was granted a lease for quarrying ordinary sand, a minor mineral, in reach No.5, Kollipara village i.e., down stream Krishna Barrage from 17.80 K.M. to 34.200 K.M. on the right flood bank of Krishna River in Guntur district, for a period of two years from 23-04-2008 to 31-03-2010. The petitioner--Gram Panchayat is located at the 21.225 K.M. point and the Flood Bank which butters the petitioner-- Grampanchayat from the Krishna River commences at point No. 21.225 K.M. and ends at 22.400 K.M. According to the notification, which led to the issuance of a lease in favour of 7th respondent, he must use another ramp for transporting the sand quarried by him. However, it would appear that the 7th respondent is desirous to use the Flood Bank Bridge adjacent to the petitioner--Grampanchayt for transporting the sand. The petitioner --Grampanchayat is apprehensive that the use of the Flood Bank Bridge adjacent to the petitioner Grampanchayat for frequent carrying of heavy loads of sand through the 7th respondent’s lorries would further enfeeble the already feeble Flood Bank posing a potential threat to the life and properties of the inhabitants of the village. The petitioner is thus before this Court. The petitioner has not represented to the 5th respondent objecting to the grant of permission by the 5th respondent to the 7th respondent pursuant to the recommendations of the 6th respondent. This Court perceives no justification for the petitioner to communicate to the 5th respondent through the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner is a juristic persona in its own right and a local authority. It has ample power, authority and jurisdiction to take all such measures as are conducive to the happiness and well being of its inhabitants. The plenitude of such power and jurisdiction includes petitioning, sensitizing or lodging objections before any authority whatsoever soliciting appropriate consideration before passing any order that potentially endangers the life, health or happiness of the inhabitants of the petitioner village. If despite such objections/representations submitted by the petitioner, any authority should take a decision which is subversive of the life or interests of the inhabitants of the petitioner Grampanchayat, the petitioner is always at liberty to pursue appropriate remedies including before the Civil Court of competent jurisdiction by way of injunctive or any other appropriate relief. This application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India at this stage of the matter is premature and based on a mere apprehension. At any rate, no Mandamus can be issued unless there is an appropriate demand and a rejection by the Executive authorities, of such legitimate demand. The petitioner’s objections and apprehensions are not even known to the 5th respondent otherwise than through this writ petition. For all the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is dismissed. The petitioner may pursue appropriate remedies as and when cause of action accrues. No costs. ____________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J Dated: 03-07-2008 Pvks/*