HON’BLE SHRI G.S.SINGHVI, THE CHIEF JUSTICE WRIT PETITION No.20039 OF 2000 Between: P. Subrahmanyam … Petitioner AND The Joint Collector, East Godavari District, Kakinada … Respondent :: O R D E R :: Counsel for the petitioner : Shri Badana Bhaskara Rao Counsel for the respondent : Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj July 4, 2007 In this petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing notice dated 5-10-2000 issued by Joint Collector, East Godavari District for auction of Sand Reach No.43, Vasanthavada Village, East Godavari District with a further prayer to either extend the period of his lease or refund the proportionate lease amount for the stoppage period i.e. 29- 5-2000 to 30-9-2000. The aforementioned prayer of the petitioner is founded on the following assertions: i) that in furtherance of the policy decision contained in G.O.Ms.No.356, dated 22-11-1999 issued by the Industries and Commerce Department and the Andhra Pradesh (Auction of Sand in the Water Courses vesting in Gram Panchayat) Rules, 2000 (for short, ‘the 2000 Rules’), the respondent conducted auction for various sand reaches of Vasanthavada Village on 6-3-2000; ii) that he participated in the auction held for Reach No.43 and gave highest bid of Rs.19,99,999/-; iii) that after acceptance of the bid, Reach No.43 was handed over to him by the end of March, 2000, but he could not undertake quarrying operations because no body came forward to take the sand due to heavy rains and floods, and iv) that the representation made by him for extension of the period of lease was not entertained and notice dated 5-10-2000 was issued by the respondent for holding fresh auction. In the counter affidavit filed by him, Sri Gopalakrishna Dwivedi, the then Joint Collector, East Godavari District, has averred that after acceptance of the highest bid given by the petitioner, he deposited the lease money; that in terms of Condition No.14 of the tender schedule, the quarrying operations had to be stopped by 30th June, and` that there is no provision in the 2000 Rules for grant of extension. Sri Gopalakrishna Dwivedi has filed another affidavit dated 24-1-2001 reiterating the assertions contained in the previous affidavit. Along with the affidavit, the respondent has placed on record the terms and conditions specified in the tender schedule and the undertaking filed by the petitioner in the form of affidavit dated 3-3-2000. Sri Badana Bhaskar Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner fairly conceded that as per the conditions of tender, the quarrying operations were to be stopped from 30th June and that there is no provision in the lease agreement for extension of the term of lease. He, however, submitted that this Court should exercise its equitable jurisdiction and direct the State to remit the lease money for the period during which the petitioner could not undertake quarrying operations due to floods. In the context of the last submission made by the learned counsel, I enquired from him whether there is any provision in the Andhra Pradesh Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966 (for short, ‘the 1966 Rules’), which provides for extension of the term of lease or for refund of the lease amount in the event of non-operation of quarry due to floods etc. In reply, the learned counsel fairly stated that there is no such provision in the 1966 Rules. This being the position, the Court cannot issue a mandamus to the respondents either to extend the term of lease or refund a portion of lease money on the premise that the petitioner could not undertake quarrying of sand. There is another reason for declining relief to the petitioner. He had participated in the auction with full knowledge that in terms of Clause 14 of the tender schedule, quarrying operations were to be stopped during monsoon season and as per the terms and conditions of lease, no extension could be granted. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed. G.S.SINGHVI, C.J. 4th July, 2007.