HON'BLE SRI ANIL R. DAVE, THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 20625 OF 2009 Dated: 01-12-2009 Between: Gangu Deva Raja Vara Prasad ... PETITIONER AND The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Industries & Commerce Department (SPIU&SAND) Department, Secretariat Building, Hyderabad, rep., by its Secretary and five others ... RESPONDENTS THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI ANIL R. DAVE AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 20625 OF 2009 ORDER: (per Sri C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy, J) This writ petition is filed in purported public interest by the petitioner who claims to be an agriculturist and owns about Acs.4.00 of land at a place called Nagayalanka. The grievance of the petitioner, in short, is that award of contract for lifting sand by the impugned notification is adversely affecting the Krishna river as it is leading to sinking of river and its diversion. From a perusal of the averments contained in the affidavit, it is evident that the pleadings of the petitioner are not quite adequate to establish his locus standi to file this writ petition as a probono publico. The petitioner has not pleaded that he is a social worker and has been espousing the public cause. Therefore, this writ petition cannot be treated as having been filed in public interest. As regards the claim of the petitioner that several lands which are situated near Krishna river at Nagayalanka, including the petitioner’s land are adversely affected, the petitioner has not filed the opinion of any expert regarding the alleged river sinking and river diversion on account of extraction of sand by the sand contractors. From the counter affidavit filed by respondent No.5, it is clear that as the sand contract was entrusted to a boatsmen labour contract cooperative society the method of extraction of sand from the bottom of the river underneath the water is different from the method of extraction of sand on dry riverbed and that, therefore, there was no need for obtaining Certificate of River Conservator or ground water clearance. On the facts of the present case, this Court need not go into this aspect because we are not satisfied with the locus standi of the petitioner to maintain this writ petition in the so called public interest. The writ petition is therefore dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, WPMP Nos. 26884 and 30579 of 2009, filed by the petitioner, are also dismissed. ANIL R. DAVE, CJ C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 01-12-2009 ks