THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.10402 of 2005 ORDER: In this writ petition, petitioner - Sri Venkateshwara Sand Quarry Boats Men Cooperative Society seeks a mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not returning the amount deposited by it for quarrying the sand in Reach No.38 of Bodasakorru Ferry Point, granted to it vide proceedings No.E4/6345/R-38/2003, dated 03.11.2003, as illegal and irrational and consequently, issue directions to the respondents to return the said amount to it. It is stated that during 2003-04, sand auctions were conducted by the District Level Committee for Sand Auctions, East Godavari, Kakinada. So far as Sand Reach No.38 of ferry point K.M.13/82 25/0 K.M. ramp at 15/42 15/6 K.M. is concerned, the petitioner offered its bid and in negotiations, it offered to pay an amount of Rs.2,25,000/- to operate quarry lease from 03.12.2003 to 30.09.2004. It is further stated that in view of the concessions notified by the Government vide G.O.Ms.No.1, Industries and Commerce (M-2) Department, dated 01.01.2001, it was given 10% concession, as such, it has to pay an amount of Rs.2,02,500/- to operate the quarry at Reach No.38 for the said period. It is further stated that pursuant to the confirmation orders granting quarry lease to the petitioner, it started quarrying sand from 03.12.2003. It is further stated that in pursuance of the lease, it has paid an amount of Rs.1,25,000/- at the time of receipt of the confirmation order and further, paid an amount of Rs.30,000/- towards instalment and thus, it has totally paid an amount of Rs.1,55,000/-. It is further stated that another society, by name, Sri Rama Sand Quarry Boats Men and Fishermen Cooperative Society, Vakala Goruvu Village, Amalapuram Mandal, represented by its President, filed W.P.No.2267 of 2004 questioning confirmation of quarry lease in favour of the petitioner and this Court by order, dated 09.02.2004, granted interim suspension. It is also stated that in view of the said orders passed by this Court, the petitioner has not operated the quarry, as such, it is entitled to refund of the amount, which was paid by it, for such inoperative period. Respondent No.1 - District Panchayat Officer, Kakinada, East Godavari, has filed counter-affidavit. In the counter-affidavit, while denying various allegations levelled by the petitioner, it is stated that pursuant to the confirmation of lease in favour of the petitioner, it has deposited Rs.1,25,000/- at the time of receipt of such order and also Rs.30,000/- subsequently. It is further stated that based on the orders passed by this Court on 09.02.2004 in W.P.No.2267 of 2004 filed by Sri Rama Sand Quarry Boats Men and Fishermen Society, telegraphic orders were issued for stopping the sand quarry at Reach No.38 of Bodasakurru Ferry Point only on 31.08.2004. It is also stated that Sri Rama Sand Quarry Boats Men and Fishermen Cooperative Society gave complaint to the District Collector by way of telegram on 22.09.2004 stating that sand quarry is going on at Reach No.38 and requested to stop the same in view of the orders passed by this Court. Thereupon, the District Collector issued telegraphic orders on 24.09.2005 to the petitioner. In view of the same and as much as the lease period expired by 30.09.2004, the petitioner is not entitled to any compensation or refund of the amount paid by it. It is submitted by Sri P.Udaya Bhaskara Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner that as the petitioner has stopped the quarry by virtue of the orders of this Court in W.P.No.2267 of 2004, it is entitled to refund of the proportionate amount for the inoperative period. It is also submitted that it has not operated the quarry after the orders of this Court. On the other hand, it is submitted by the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents that in spite of the orders of this Court, the petitioner continued its quarry operations and that even in the month of September, 2005, there were complaints against the petitioner that it is operating the quarry in spite of the orders of this Court, as such, telegraphic orders were issued on 22.09.2004 and the lease period expired by 30.09.2004. In that view of the matter, it is not entitled to refund of the amount. From the above submissions, it is clear that though lease period of the petitioner commences from 03.12.2003 to 30.09.2004, there are no specific averments in its affidavit filed in support of the writ petition as to when it received the orders of this Court and on what date, it has stopped the quarry operations and intimated the authorities concerned that it has stopped the quarry in view of the orders passed by this Court. Although the petitioner was a party respondent in the aforesaid writ petition, in the absence of producing any material to show that on what date, it has received the order passed by this Court and further, in the absence of taking steps to inform the authorities concerned with regard to stoppage of quarrying operations, simply referring to the orders of this Court, it cannot claim refund of the amount deposited by it towards quarry lease. It is to be noticed that this Court granted interim orders on 09.02.2004, but the Officers concerned issued proceedings, dated 31.08.2004, asking the petitioner to stop the quarrying operations. It is also to be noticed that there was a telegraphic complaint from Sri Rama Sand Quarry Boats Men and Fishermen Cooperative Society, which filed W.P.No.2267 of 2004, on 22.09.2004 stating that in spite of the orders of this Court, the petitioner is operating the quarry, and considering the same, further communication was also sent to the petitioner by the authorities concerned on 24.09.2005 for stopping the quarry. In view of the same, it is clear that the petitioner has not stopped the quarry, and operated the same almost up to the end of lease period i.e. 30.09.2004. For the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any merit in the writ petition for grant of refund of the amount paid by the petitioner towards quarry lease for the period from 03.12.2003 to 30.09.2004. The writ petition is devoid of merit and accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs. ______________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J 29th JULY, 2010. kvni