The Hon’ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy Writ Petition No.6435 of 2010 Dated 22nd March, 2010 Between: A.Mallikarjuna Rao …Petitioner And 1.The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Secretary, Department of Industries and Commerce, Secretariat, Hyderabad and another. …Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr.N.Pramod Counsel for the Respondents: AGP for Mines and Geology The Court made the following: This Court made the following: Order:- This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to set aside notification, dated 05-03-2010, issued by respondent No.2 calling for tenders to grant leasehold rights for a period for two years commencing from 01-04- 2010 to 30-03-2012 in respect of Sand Reach No.2 of Godavaru Village, Duggirala, Mangalagiri Mandal, Guntur District, as illegal and arbitrary. I have heard Sri N.Pramod, learned Counsel for the petitioner, and perused the record. The petitioner was the highest bidder in respect of Sand Reach No.3 of Chirravuru Village, Tadepally Mandal, Guntur District. His tender was accepted for a period of one year from 15-03-2005 to 14-03-2006. After commencement of the quarry operations by the petitioner, a Public Interest Litigation appeared to have been instituted in this Court in which this Court granted stay of mining. On account of the said stay, the petitioner was prevented from continuing with the mining operations and he was able to carry on the mining operations only for a period of 59 days. The petitioner made a representation on 12-09-2005 to the District Panchayat Officer, Guntur, for refund of the proportionate lease amount for the period during which he could not carry on the mining operations on account of stay. The said representation was entertained by the District Panchayat Officer and he had, in turn, requested the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Guntur, vide his letter, dated 31-10-2005, to return the sum of Rs.68,74,520/- towards the proportionate lease amount for the period during which the petitioner could not carry on the mining operations. Accordingly, the petitioner has taken the said amount. Surprisingly, five years later, the petitioner filed the present Writ Petition purported to have been aggrieved by the fresh tender notification issued by the respondents, after disposal of the Writ Petitions on account of which the auctions were stalled. The main plank on which the Writ Petition is rested is that as the petitioner’s representation before respondent No.1 is pending wherein he has requested for permission to carry on the mining operations for the period during which he could not operate the sand quarry, the respondents are not justified in holding auction. The petitioner pleaded that though the Reach in question viz., Sand Reach No.3 of Chirravuru Village, is not notified, Sand Reach No.2 of Godavaru Village, which is notified in the impugned notification over laps with the said Reach and therefore, if auction is held, his interest will be affected. In my considered opinion, this Writ Petition is wholly misconceived. Though letter, dated 31st October, 2005, addressed by the District Panchayat Officer, Guntur, to the Chief Executive Officer, Guntur, and the petitioner’s undated representation made to respondent No.1 disclose that the petitioner has taken back the proportionate lease amount at his own request, he failed to disclose the said fact in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition. In my opinion, such non-disclosure constitutes suppression of a material fact. Once the petitioner has taken back the lease amount, he can have no claim whatsoever over the Reach in respect of which he was granted lease for a period of one year irrespective of whether or not the Godavaru Reach, which is presently notified, overlaps with Reach No.3 of Chirravuru Village, in respect of which the petitioner was earlier granted lease. The petitioner has absolutely no semblance of right to seek any relief qua the impugned notification. It is not the case of the petitioner that there is any statutory provision or clause in the lease agreement under which he is entitled to claim a right to carry on the mining operation for the period during which he could not operate the quarry lease. As already noted, the petitioner has taken back the proportionate lease amount as he was not able to carry on the quarry operations. This being the admitted position, the petitioner has no enforceable legal right to file this Writ Petition to stall the proposed auction. For the aforestated reasons, the Writ Petition is dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the Writ Petition, WPMP.No.8296 of 2010, filed by the petitioner for interim relief, is disposed of as infructuous. --------------------------------- C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy, J Date: 22-3-2010 lur