HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S. RAO WRIT PETITION No.22003 of 2005 18-10-2005 Between: Rajulapudi Hanumanth Rao …Petitioner. And The District Level Committee, Rep. By its Chairman, East Godavari District …Respondents. HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S. RAO WRIT PETITION No.22003 of 2005 O R D E R : The first respondent conducted auction for leasing out the right to collect Sewerage Fee in respect of sand Reach No.48 (Vemagiri–Kadiyapulanka) situated at Akhanda Godavari Left Bank from 0/000 to 8/000 Km, Ramp at 4/70 Km. The petitioner allegedly became the highest bidder in the auction held on 28-9-2005 at a sum of Rs.58,60,000/-. The auction was, however, not confirmed and the same was re-notified. Questioning the non-confirmation of the auction, the petitioner filed a writ petition being W.P.No.21535 of 2005. This Court passed interim orders permitting the respondents to conduct re-auction on 15-10-2005, but prohibited the respondents from confirming the auction until further orders. So as to protect the monetary loss to the Government, the second respondent, who is a Member Convener of District level Committee for sand auction, issued a notification dated 2-10-2005 (published in the Newspapers on 3-10-2005) inviting applications for grant of temporary permits in respect of 7 packages/reaches situated at Godavari River. Reach No.48 was not one among them. Be that as it is, the petitioner made an application for grant of temporary permit in respect of Reach No.48 offering to pay a sum of Rs.2,10,000/-. Allegedly considering the said application, the second respondent issued proceedings dated 1-10-2005 granting temporary permit to the petitioner for 15 days from 1-10-2005 to 15-10-2005 for Reach No.48. The petitioner allegedly took possession of the reach and operating the same. The second respondent again issued another proceedings on 3-10-2005, in partial modification of the proceedings dated 1-10-2005, granting temporary permit to the third respondent for a period of 13 days from 3-10-2005 to 15-10-2005. This proceeding is assailed in the present writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner Ms. N.Shoba vehemently contends that though the second respondent issued a notification inviting applications for grant of temporary permit in respect of 7 packages/reaches, Reach No.48 was not included therein, as by that date the petitioner was granted temporary permit for Reach No.48. Secondly, she would urge that the permit granted to the petitioner was cancelled without any notice, which is bad in law. The petitioner being the highest bidder in the auction conducted on 28-9- 2005, his application was considered for grant of temporary permit, which is valid, and the same cannot be withdrawn in an unreasonable manner. Per contra, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj submits that as per the Andhra Pradesh Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966 (for brevity ‘the Rules’) the lessee for previous year gets preferential right for grant of temporary permit, and therefore, the third respondent was granted temporary permit and accordingly the first respondent issued telegrams to the earlier bidders for the year 2004-05, that pursuant to such telegrams, the third respondent made an application along with bankers cheque, and therefore, the same was allotted to him, which is legal. He also points out that the petitioner gave an undertaking before the second respondent that he would have no objection for cancellation of temporary permit in the event of the third respondent approaching for temporary permit. Rule 9-L of the Rules empowers the District level Committee to make alternate arrangements for quarrying the sand in the case of areas which are not leased out by sealed tender/public auction. When such a decision is taken, all the participants shall have to put their respective bids in a secured box and the highest bidder among them is entitled for the temporary permit. Proviso to Rule 9-L of the Rules mandates that the District Panchayat Officer may permit the earlier lessee to continue the quarrying operations on payment of proportionate amount with 10% enhancement, which should not exceed sixty days. In this case, the first respondent conducted auction for the year 2005-06 even before the expiry of lease period on 30-9-2005 for the year 2004-05. The auction conducted could not be confirmed, and therefore, the petitioner could not be granted lease for the year 2005- 0 6 . Unless and until the auction is confirmed by the competent authority, the petitioner, who is statedly the highest bidder, would not get any right to enforce in a writ petition. Secondly, as per the decision taken by the first respondent, telegrams were issued to the earlier lessees, like the third respondent, who approached the second respondent with a bankers cheque for the required amount. In the meanwhile, it appears, presumably due to delay in the communication, the third respondent could not approach the second respondent. Therefore, considering the application of the petitioner, proceedings were issued on 1-10-2005. The petitioner gave an undertaking that if the earlier bidder i.e., the third respondent herein, expresses his willingness and comes forward to take up the temporary permit, the petitioner would not have any objection if the temporary permit given to him is cancelled. This aspect is also clearly mentioned in paragraph No.3 of proceedings dated 1-10-2005. In that view of the matter, the temporary permit granted to the petitioner, pending the expression of willingness by the third respondent, is conditional and the same does not confer any absolute right on the petitioner. Further the second respondent acted very fairly in granting permit to the third respondent when the latter was allowed temporary permission only for the period from 3-10-2005 to 15-10-2005. For the above brief reasons this Court does not find any grave error in the impugned action of the second respondent. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed in limini. _______________ (V.V.S. RAO, J) 18-10-2005. Msr.