IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION NO : 15917 of 2002 Between: Vallabhaneni Rambabu S/o Venkata Rao R/o Gangikunta, Vuyyuru Mandal, Krishna District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Secretary, Panchayat Raj Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The District Committee, Rep. by its Chairperson, District Collector, Panchayat Raj, Krishna District. 3 The Commissioner of Panchayat Raj, Hyderabad. 4 The District Panchayat Officer, Machilipatnam, Krishna District 5 Valluripalem Gram Panchayat, Rep. by its Sarpanch, Valluripalem, Thotala Valluru Mandal, Krishna District. .....RESPONDENTS 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 issue an order or Writ one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in Proc. NO. 3917/2000, P.1, dt 25-07-2002, in rejecting the representation of the petitioner instead of forwarding it to District Level Committee as per A.P.M.M.C. Rules, 1966, as arbitrary, illegal, unjust and violative of principles of natural justice and contrary to Rules and consequently call for the records and set aside the proceedings of the 1st respondent and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: SMT.N.SHOBA Counsel for Respondents: GP For Industries & Commerce The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is filed for issuance of a Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in Proc.No.3917/2000 (PR), dated 25.07.2002, in rejecting the representation of the petitioner instead of forwarding it to the District Level Committee as per A.P. Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966 (for short ‘the Rules’), as arbitrary and illegal. The second respondent issued notification for holding auctions in various reaches of Krishna District for sand quarrying. Auctions were held on 11.04.2000. The reach was notified for Rs.5,25,000/- for the period from 11.04.2000 to 30.09.2000. It was stated that the petitioner also submitted his tender and participated in the auction for Thotlavalluru Mandal, Vallurupalem Village and Gram Panchayat, Krishna District. He became highest bidder for Rs.28,00,999.99 ps., and deposited the entire amount. He also deposited Rs.1,40,050/- towards stamps for registration of the agreement, and Rs.1,39,000/- towards Earnest Money Deposit and entered into an agreement on 16.04.2000. As per the conditions under the River Conservancy Act, 1884, the successful bidder will have to construct ramp for extracting the sand only at the notified area in the reach and convey through the notified area as directed by the Irrigation Department. The petitioner obtained waybill books as per Rule 23 (1) of G.O.Ms.No.71. However, he could not operate completely, as there was some law and order problem in the area and he was prohibited from entering into the area. Therefore, he made representation for use of proclainer. Accordingly, the District Level Committee gave permission to the petitioner for use of proclainer. As the labour was troubling him for using proclainer in spite of assurance given by the petitioner that they will be continued in the quarry, he could not operate the quarry from 31.07.2000 to 30.09.2000 i.e., for a period of 62 days out of 68 days of the contract period. Therefore, he filed a petition before the Commissioner, who after hearing the petitioner and after verifying the records found that there was no quarrying for 62 days and the lessee has to be considered for remission proportionately i.e., for Rs.10,33,702/- for 62 days on proportionate basis. The grievance of the petitioner is that though the matter was recommended by the Commissioner, the Government rejected the same and the District Panchayat Officer, Machilipatnam, intimated the same to the petitioner through his letter dated 25.07.2002. Hence the present writ petition. Admittedly, the petitioner could not conduct quarry of sand at the reach from 31.07.2000 to 30.09.2000. Under those circumstances, the Commissioner through his letter dated 24.01.2000 recommended the case of the petitioner to the Government for proportionate remission i.e., Rs.10,33,702/- for 62 days non-operation of quarry, since he does not have power to grant remission over and above Rs.10,000/-. The Government rejected the same through the impugned letter. Though no counter affidavit is filed, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents strenuously contended that under Rule 9 (B)(1) of the Rules, the petitioner is not entitled for such remission. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the amendment has come into force on 10.04.2007 and prior to that the respondents were endowed with a power to grant proportionate remission in case the quarry operations could not be conducted due to the circumstances beyond the control of the contractor. On perusal of the impugned order, it reveals that no reasons were given for rejecting the recommendation of the Commissioner for grant of proportionate remission of quarry lease to the petitioner. Under those circumstances, I am of the opinion that the order impugned in this writ petition suffers from gross violation of principles of natural justice. Therefore, the same is arbitrary and liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded to the first respondent directing him to consider the matter afresh as per Rule 9 (k) of the Rules and pass appropriate orders as per law within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and communicate the same to the petitioner. With the above directions, the Writ Petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________ (C.V. RAMULU, J.) 11th June, 2009 Js.