THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU WRIT PETITION NO. 6731 of 2008 Dated:21.09.2010 Between: L.Veeraiah .. Petitioner AND The Guntur Zilla Parishad, Guntur, rep., by its Chief Executive Officer, Guntur, Guntur District and others .. Respondents THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU WRIT PETITION NO. 6731 of 2008 ORDER:(per Hon’ble Sri Justice Goda Raghuram) The petitioner seeks a declaration that the action of the Guntur Zilla Parishad, Guntur District – 1st respondent, in trying to allot a quarry lease in favour of respondents 3 to 5 without their participating in a public auction, as regards land to an extent of Acs.20.00 in Survey No.581 of Pericherla Village, Medikondur Mandal, Guntur District, to the detriment of the petitioner as the highest bidder at the action conducted by the 1st respondent on 19.01.2004, is illegal and opposed to Articles 14 and 300-A of the Constitution of India. He also seeks a direction to the 1st respondent to grant leasehold rights to him in respect of the land in question. The Zilla Parishad filed a counter asserting that it owns quarry land to an extent of Acs.63.50 gts., in Survey No.581 of Pericherla Village. Prior to 2004, the Assistant Director of Mines and Geology, Pandaripuram, Guntur – the 2nd respondent, had granted a lease for quarry operations over certain extents of land, without any authority. When it came to the notice of the Zilla Parishad, it initiated action to protect its property and decided to conduct a public auction to lease out the quarry lands on its own. The answering respondent further states that it divided the total extent of land in Survey No.581 into three parts and conducted a public auction on 19.07.2004 at its office, whereat the petitioner became the highest bidder for an extent of Acs.20.00. The other two parts were leased out to others in view of their bids in the public auction. While so before the lease could be operationalised, some others including Vengalayapalem Harijan Labour Contract Co-operative Society, Vengalayapalem Village, filed W.P.No.1777 of 2004 and other Writ Petitions seeking directions not to interfere with their possession and enjoyment, claiming to have mining leases in their favour. The High Court issued a direction to the Zilla Parishad not to interfere with the writ petitioners’ rights. Therefore, it could not handover possession of the land to the petitioner. The counter further states that the Writ Petitions were disposed of by a common order dated 02.11.2006, declaring that the 3rd respondent - Zilla Parishad to be competent to proceed with the public auction, so however that the writ petitioners rights (writ petitioners therein) shall not be disturbed. The Zilla Parishad has further pleaded that it had refunded the amounts deposited by the other highest bidders at the auction held on 19.01.2004. The amount bid by the petitioner was however not refunded on account of the pendency of the litigation. It has categorically denied any intent to grant leases to the non-official respondents without the process of a public auction and has also pleaded that the lease period for which the lease was granted to the petitioner had expired. By an order today, this Court in W.A.No.282 of 2008, while dismissing the appeal, has also dismissed W.P.No.1777 of 2004 on the ground that the appellant/petitioner therein failed to implead the State of Andhra Pradesh which is a necessary and proper party to the Writ Petition. As W.P.No.1777 of 2004 has been dismissed as above, and as by the judgment in W.P.No.1777 of 2004 and other two writ petitions, this Court declared the right of the Zilla Parishad to proceed with the auction of the lands in question, there is no impediment for the Zilla Parishad, Gutnur, to pursue its lawful rights over the land. We are disinclined to make any pronouncement in this Writ Petition on the issue whether mere ownership or control over the land by the Zilla Parishad would entitle the Zilla Parishad to grant leases for quarrying of the mineral as well, having regard to the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 and the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Minor Mineral (Concession) Rules, 1966. Needless to observe that the provisions of those statutory instruments bind the Zilla Parishad, Guntur. In any event, since the petitioner’s lease period is over, no relief can be granted herein. The petitioner is however at liberty to approach the Zilla Parishad, Guntur, for refund of the amount deposited by him, pursuant to his successful bid at the auction conducted by the Zilla Parishad, Guntur. The substantive relief sought in the Writ Petition, however, does not survive. The Writ Petition is, according, dismissed as infructuous. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J __________________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J 21.09.2010. KH