THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION No. 23237 OF 2011 O R D E R : This Writ Petition has been instituted seeking a writ of mandamus for declaring the action of the respondents in insisting for payment of additional seignorage fee in addition to the bid amount deposited, for the purpose of grant of way bills in Form-S5 for transportation of sand from Godavari River at Kistapur Village, Jaipur Mandal, Adilabad District, during the subsistence of the leasehold rights, as bad in law. Smt. N. Shoba, learned counsel for the writ petitioner submits that the petitioner has been granted leasehold rights on 02.06.2010 by the Assistant Director of Mines and Geology, Mancherial, Adilabad District for quarrying sand, for a period of two years ie. up to 31.03.2012 and that the writ petitioner has paid a sum of Rs.1.2 crores for the first year with an obligation to enhance the lease amount by 20% for the second year. It is further pointed out that in terms of Rule 9-X(C) of the A.P. Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966 (for short, ‘the 1966 Rules’), the way bill for transporting sand shall be granted in Form-S5, but however, the way bill will be issued proportionate to the knocked down bid amount by calculating the seignorage fee as specified in Schedule-I of Rule 10 of the 1966 Rules. The learned counsel would contend that this portion of the Rule has fallen for consideration for its validity in a batch of Writ Petitions, which was considered by a Division Bench and when review applications were moved therein, by an order passed on 22.04.2010, the Division Bench has allowed the Writ Petitions holding that Rules 9-B (6)(iv), 9-T and 9- X(c) of the 1966 Rules, conferring powers on the authorities to fix the sale price, are declared unconstitutional and struck down. In that view of the matter, there is no justification for the respondents to still fall back upon such a provision for the purpose of regulating the grant of way bills/transport permits in Form-S5 to the writ petitioner. However, the learned Government Pleader for Industries and Commerce, who has received instructions from the Assistant Director of Mines and Geology, tried to reiterate the same contention, which is based upon Rule 9-X(c) of the 1966 Rules. Palpably, such a contention is not available to the State as of now, in view of the judgment rendered on 22.04.2010 by the Division Bench, to which the State as well as the Director of Mines and Geology are parties. However, it is stated by the Assistant Director of Mines and Geology, in his instructions, that he has been regularly issuing permits to the lessees as per the request to limited extent of 50,000/- cubic meters, as per the directions issued by the Deputy Director, Ground Water Department, Nirmal and that the lessee has never been refused for issuing the way bill/transport permit in Form-S5. In view of this statement made by the Assistant Director of Mines and Geology that the writ petitioner has never been denied grant of transport permits or way bills in Form-S5, to my mind, there is no cause of action available to the petitioner as of now, for approaching this Court. Hence, the Writ Petition is dismissed, observing that the Assistant Director of Mines and Geology, Mancherial, Adilabad District shall not fall back upon Rule 9-X(c) of the 1966 Rules in the matter of grant of way bills or transport permits, to be granted to the lessees under Form-S5, so long as the leasehold rights in favour of the writ petitioner are subsisting and so long as the lease amount has been paid and the lessee has been quarrying the sand, duly fulfilling the conditions subject to which the grant has been accorded. No costs. ---------------------------------------------- (NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO, J) 29th August 2011 ksld