THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Writ Petition Nos.1336 and 1845 of 2009 (Dated: 14-07-2010) Between: M/s.Gollapudi all casts Sand Boat Workers Labour Contract Cooperative Society Ltd. ….Petitioner A n d The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Industries & Commerce (M-1) Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad rep. by Its Secretary and others …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Writ Petition Nos.1336 and 1845 of 2009 COMMON ORDER: The petitioner in these two writ petitions is one and the same and hence, they are heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 2. These two writ petitions are filed by M/s.Gollapudi all casts Sand Boat Workers Labour Contract Cooperative Society Limited, represented by its Secretary P.Venkata Rama Raju. 3. Background facts, in a nutshell, leading to filing of these two writ petitions by M/s Gollapudi all casts Sand Boat Workers Labour Contract Cooperative Society Limited are:- The Assistant Director, Mines & Geology-cum-Member Convener, District Level Committee for Sand Auctions, Vijayawada, Krishna District-5th respondent called for sealed tenders for grant of leasehold rights of Guntupalli sand reach of Ibrahimpatnam Mandal, Krishna District from 1.4.2008 to 31.03.2009 and further extension of one year, i.e., from 1.4.2009 to 31.3.2010 on payment of 20% enhanced highest bid amount by issuing Auction Notice No.478/Q/2007, dt.7.3.2008. The existing lessee, namely, M/s.Sri Anjaneya All Casts Boats men L.C.C.Society approached the Government seeking extension of lease for non-operation period of 106 days. Because of the pendency of the application filed by the existing lessee, finalization of auction proceedings came to be kept in abeyance. After completion of the non-operation period of the existing lessee, the 5th respondent issued a letter dated 9.1.2009 to the writ petitioner to participate in the auction scheduled on 16.01.2009. The writ petitioner, i.e., M/s.Gollapudi all casts Sand Boat Workers Labour Contract Cooperative Society Ltd. (for brevity, “the Gollapudi Society”) was declared as the highest bidder and the bid was knocked down in its favour. The 5th respondent issued letter dated 17.1.2009 declaring the Gollapudi Society as the highest bidder and directing it to pay 25% of the knocked down bid amount along with income tax in two working days. The text of the letter addressed to Gollapudi Society reads as hereunder:- “ I invite attention to the subject and references cited and inform that during the auctions held on 27-3-2008 the Guntupalli Sand Reach was knocked down in favour of M/s.The Gollapudi all caste Sand Boat Workers L.C.C. Society Ltd., Secretary : Sri P.Venkata Rama Raju for a highest bid amount of Rs.11,71,837/- through sealed tender for a period of 59 days. As per condition 1 of Sub-rule I of Rule 9 of APMMC Rules, 1966 amended vide G.O.Ms.No.84, Dt.10-4-2007 the highest bidder shall pay an amount equivalent to 255 of the knocked down bid amount along with Income Tax within two working days and hence it is requested to pay and submit the following within two working days for taking further necessary action in the matter. 01 25% of Bid amount Rs.2,92,960/- 02 Income Tax @ 2.266% Rs.6650/-” The Gollapudi Society paid the amount on 19.01.2009 and made a representation to the respondents to grant leasehold rights for the total period of 24 months as notified in the auction notice dated 7.3.2008. (b) In the meanwhile, the Guntupalli Sand Loading, unloading Boat Workers Labour Contract Cooperative Society Limited, Guntupally, Krishna District represented by its President C.Venkateshwaru-6th respondent filed Writ Petition No.707 of 2009 seeking stay of all further proceedings, pursuant to the letter dated 17.01.2009 addressed to the Gollapudi Society by the 5th respondent. An application was also moved seeking interim relief in the said writ petition. Subsequently, the said writ petition ended in dismissal as withdrawn. 4. Since respondents failed to issue confirmation letter despite accepting 25% of the bid amount and expressing willingness to deposit rest of the amount, the Gollapudi Society filed Writ Petition No.1336 of 2009 seeking the following relief:- “ For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, it is, therefore, prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not issuing the confirmation order granting the leasehold rights of sand quarry in respect of Guntupalli sand reach for a total period of 24 months as notified vide the auction notice dt.7.3.2008 in pursuance to the Letter No.1620/Sand/2008 dt:17.01.2009 issued by the 5th respondent as arbitrary, illegal and consequently direct the respondents to grant leasehold rights of Guntupali sand reach for a total period of 24 months as notified vide the auction notice dt:7.3.2008 to the petitioner society by issuing confirmation order in pursuance to the letter dt:17.01.2009 issued by the 5th respondent and pass such other order or orders as the Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case”. 5. Since M/s.Guntupalli Boats Men Sand Loading and unloading LCC Society (for brevity, “the Guntupalli Society”) failed to quote the amount in the tender, the Joint Collector and Chairman, District Level Committee for Sand Auctions, Krishna District-3rd respondent treated the tender submitted by the Guntupalli Society as ` no tender’, and thereby, rejected the tender of the Guntupalli Society. Thereupon, an objection was raised by the Guntupalli Society for declaring the Gollapudi Society as the highest bidder. The 3rd respondent addressed letter dated 20.01.2009 to the Director of Mines and Geology, Hyderabad for clarification on the tender submitted by the Guntupalli Society. Thereupon, the Director of Mines & Geology, Hyderabad issued clarification under letter No.2221/R9/2009, dt.21-1-2009. According to the clarification issued by the Director of Mines and Geology, the bid offered by the Guntupalli Society is in accordance with Rule 9-C of A.P.Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules”). Basing on the said clarification, the auction came to be confirmed in favour of the Guntupalli Society. Consequently, Guntupalli Society paid 25% of the bid amount. Aggrieved by the same, the Gollapudi Society filed Writ Petition No.1845 of 2009 seeking the following relief:- “ For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, it is therefore prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more especially one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, call for the records relating to the impugned proceedings dated 23.01.2009 issued by the 5th respondent and the consequential confirmation order dated 27.01.2009 issued by the 2nd respondent in favour of the 6th respondent granting leasehold rights to quarry sand at Guntupalli Sand Reach, Ibrahimpatnam Mandal, Krishna District and set aside the same as arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the A.P.M.M.C.Rules, 1966 and consequently direct the respondents to issue confirmation order to the writ petitioner society in pursuance to the letter dated 17.01.2009 issued by the 5th respondent, and pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case”. 6. The respondents filed counter affidavits. It is suffice to refer the counter affidavit of the 3rd respondent in Writ Petition No.1845 of 2009. It is stated in the counter affidavit that the Guntupalli Society had not quoted the amount in the tender document as required under Rule 9-E of the Rules, and therefore, it was construed as `no offer’. It is further stated in the counter that not only the tender of the Guntupalli Society, but the tender of M/s.Nagarjuna All Castes Sand and Ferry Boat Workers LCC Society also came to be rejected for not quoting the amount offered by it in the tender document. For better appreciation, I may refer paragraphs 6 and 7 of the counter affidavit and they read as hereunder:- “ 6. I further submit that when the District Level Committee had announced it’s decision in the auction hall with respect to the rejection of the application of the 3 bidders and acceptance of the application of M/s.Gollapudi All Castes Sand Boat Workers and LCC Society Ltd., M/s.Guntupalli Boats Men Sand Loading and unloading LCC Society had made a representation to me with copy to the Asst. Director, Mines & Geology and they have also submitted the same representation to the District Collector who is the confirming authority in respect of this auction. 7. I further submit that the District Collector upon receiving the said representation of the M/s. Guntupalli Boats Men Sand Loading and unloading LCC Society Ltd. had forwarded the said representation to me to enquire and speak. As I have already taken a decision and rejected the application of M/s Nagarjuna All Castes Sand and Ferry Boat Workers LCC Society and M/s.Guntupalli Boats Men Sand Loading and unloading LCC Society Ltd. As stated above, I had addressed a letter to the Director of Mines and Geology, Hyderabad vide 1620/Sand/2008, dt.20-1-2009 seeking necessary clarification with respect to the Sealed tenders submitted by M/s.Guntupalli Boats Men Sand Loading and Unloading LCC Society Ltd. especially with regard to the amount offered col. Where the said Society has written “As per G.O.Ms.No.84” instead of writing the amount in words or in figures. The Director of Mines and Geology, Hyderabad vide his letter No.2221/R9/2009, dt.21-1-2009 had made the following clarification: “the local society participated in the auction has already submitted sealed tender in Form S4 duly mentioning amount “As per G.O.Ms.No.84: against the Column “Offered amount”. This clearly indicated that the local society prepared to accept the bid as per stipulation, mentioned in rule 9-C of APMMC Rules 1966. Therefore, it cannot be said to be invalid offer and hence requested the confirming authority may please be taken accordingly subject to fulfillment of other terms and conditions”. Basing on the clarification given by the Director of Mines and Geology I had forwarded the proposal to the District Collector for necessary further proceedings and orders. The District Collector vide Proceedings No.1620/Sand/2008, dated 24-1-2009 had issued confirmation order in favour of M/s.Guntupalli Boats Men Sand Loading and unloading LCC Society Ltd. on the basis of the clarification given by the Director of Mines and Geology. I further submit that on the basis of the confirmation orders issued by the District Collector, lease deed was executed and work order was issued by the 5th respondent herein. Therefore in the light of the above facts and circumstances I pray the Hon’ble Court to pass such appropriate orders as may be deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case”. 7. Heard Sri A.Sanjeev Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner-society, learned Government Pleader for Mines and Geology appearing for respondents 1 to 5 and Sri C.V.Mohan Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent No.6. 8. The facts, which are not in dispute, are:- The Gollapudi Society quoted the amount offered by it in the relevant column in the tender document and whereas the Guntupalli Society has not quoted the amount offered by it in the relevant column of the tender document. But, it mentioned “as per G.O.Ms.No.84”, in the relevant column. Indisputably, it is not only the Gollapudi Society and Guntupalli Society, which responded to the notification, but there are other societies, namely, M/s.Nagarjuna All Castes Sand and Ferry Boat Workers LCC Society and the Krishna Country Canal Boat Workers LCC Society. Two Societies, namely, M/s.Nagarjuna All Castes Sand and Ferry Boat Workers LCC Society and M/s.Guntupalli Boats Men Sand Loading and unloading LCC Society stated in the relevant column with regard to amount quoted as “ as per G.O.Ms.No.84”. 9. Sri C.V.Mohan Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the 6th respondent submits that as per rule 9-C of the Rules registered Boats Men Cooperative Society shall be given preference by allowing 10% concession on the highest bid/tender amount offered in the auction. According to the learned Senior Counsel, in view of the clause there is no need for the registered Boats Men cooperative Society to quote the amount in the relevant column of the tender document. Learned Senior Counsel also refers rule 9-E of the Rules relating to submission of sealed tenders and acceptance of the bid. 10. It is trite to note that the tender notification dated 7.3.2008 is in respect of lease period commencing from 1.4.2008 to 31.3.2010. As on this day, the period stipulated in the auction notice has been elapsed. For one reason or the other, neither the Gollapudi Society nor the Guntupalli Society operated quarry during the lease period. The question whether the tender submitted by Guntupalli Society is in accordance with Rule 9-C and 9-E of the Rules is not required to be adjudicated since the lease period itself has been expired. Therefore, I am of the view that the cause in these writ petitions does not survive, and accordingly, they are hereby dismissed as infructuous. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J Dt.14-07-2010 RAR THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Writ Petition Nos.1336 and 1845 of 2009 (Dated: 14-07-2010)