HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO W.P.Nos.2203 of 2010 & 7450 of 2010 Dated: 06-09-2010 W.P.No.2203 of 2010 Between: Chamala Sudershan Reddy. …Petitioner AND The Govt. of A.P., Rep. by its Secretary to Govt. Industries & Commerce (SPIU & SAND) Department, A.P.Secretariat, Hyderabad & others. Respondents. W.P.No.7450 of 2010 Between: Belly Veerabhadram. …Petitioner AND The Govt. of A.P., Rep. by its Secretary to Govt. Industries & Commerce (SPIU & SAND) Department, A.P.Secretariat, Hyderabad & others. Respondents This Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO W.P.Nos.2203 of 2010 & 7450 of 2010 COMMON ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice A.Gopal Reddy) These two writ petitions, in the form of public interest, have been filed for issuing a writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in seeking to permit sand quarrying in Vangamarthi Village, Shaligouraram Mandal, Nalgonda District on nomination basis as arbitrary and illegal; and to set aside the memo No.14313/SPIU & SAND/2008-1 Industries and Commerce (SPIU & SAND Department), dated 17.7.2009 of the first respondent by declaring the same as contrary to G.O.Ms.No.84, dated 10.4.2007 and G.O.Ms.No.24, dated 12.2.2007 and also contrary to A.P. Minor Mineral Concessions Rules, 1966 and contrary to the provisions of A.P.Water Land & Trees Act, 2002 and rules made thereunder. The contention of the petitioners is that all the sand bearing areas in the State will be leased out by sealed tender-cum-public auction, reach or mandal wise by the auction authority as specified under Rule 9-H(1) financial year wise and as per Rule 9-B of A.P. Miner, Mineral Concession Rules, 1966 as amended in G.O.Ms.No.84, dated 10.4.2007. The 5th respondent-Assistant Director of Mines & Geology, Nalgonda has to keep in mind the conditions stipulated under the Act 10/2002 and has to consult the Irrigation and Command Area Department (I & CAD), Ground Water Department and also availability of sand, the potentials of sand consumption in the area etc., and he has also to get approval by the District Level Committee before notification. It is contended that after obtaining the necessary report/clearance from the Conservator River and the Director, Ground Water Department and after receiving proposals from the concerned Assistant Director of Mines & Geology, the District Level Committee alone is competent authority to identify the reaches and mandals to be leased out for conduct of auction, to fix up maximum bid amount etc. Without following the said procedure, issuing permission for sand quarrying in Vangamarthi Village on nomination basis is arbitrary and illegal. It is contended that earlier the first respondent issued Memo No.6829/SPIU & SAND/2008-2, dated 17.5.2008 in favour of Itukulapadu Gram Panchayat permitting for sand quarrying on nomination basis and that when it was challenged before this Court in W.P.No.11235 of 2008, this Court suspended the said memo by order, dated 28.5.2008 holding that the memo is contrary to the Rules contained in G.O.Ms.No.84, dated 10.4.2007. Therefore, the present memo again issued permitting the gram panchayat for removal of the silt and sand from the Moosi bed is liable to be set aside. The Assistant Director of Mines & Geology, Nalgonda-5th respondent filed a counter affidavit stating that the objective underlying the removal of silt and sand is more for the purpose of increasing the storage capacity of the river Moosi on account of which, in normal circumstances it would be an activity that would have to be taken up on payment to contractors and taking the contract for the same purpose which would be a works contract. In the instant case, on account of the fact that ‘removal of silt and sand’ also consists partly of sand, for which the state can earn mineral revenue, the procedure that has been followed is to grant the ‘process’ to the Gram Panchayat concerned who in turn would float tenders for the purpose of awarding the contracts for removal of sand that is mixed with silt. The contractor is also liable to remove the material from the bed of the river Moosi and transport it away and for this particular purpose, because there is also sand that comes as a part of the mixture that is removed from the river bed, the State would stipulate that a minimum upset price for such mineral which, the Gram Panchayat, after floating tenders, shall be liable to deposit with the Government. Therefore, the contention of the writ petitioners that the panchayat is not competent and that it does not have the capacity to execute the work may not hold water since the panchayat would just have to call for tenders, the way it is done with respect to any other contract/work that is allotted to them or that is sought to be executed by them. Now, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the averments made in paragraph 16 of the counter that the Gram Panchayat would float tenders for the purpose of awarding the contracts for removal of sand, may be recorded and the writ petitions may be closed. Recording the said averments in the counter affidavit, the writ petitions are dismissed. No order as to costs. ________________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J. __________________ SEPTEMBER 06, 2010 RAJA ELANGO, J. Tsr.