IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI ANIL R. DAVE AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO.15944 OF 2009 Dt.26.10.2009 Between: Nomula Sattaiah … Petitioner And The Government of Andhra Pradesh Rep. by its Secretary, Industries and Commerce (SPIU & SAND) Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others … Respondents WRIT PETITION NO.17327 OF 2009 Between: Vajje Veeraiah and others …Petitioners And Government of Andhra Pradesh Rep. by its Principal Secretary Industries & Commerce (MI) Department Secretariat, Hyderabad and others …Respondents THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI ANIL R. DAVE AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NOs.15944 AND 17327 OF 2009 COMMON ORDER: (per the Hon’ble Sri Justice C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy) These two Writ Petitions are filed in the name of Public Interest for a Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in permitting respondent No.8 for removal of silt and sand from Moosi River bed surrounding Jajireddygudem Village, Arvapally Mandal, Nalgonda District, as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, A.P. Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966 and A.P. Water, Land and Trees Act, 2002. As both these Writ Petitions pertain to entrustment of work relating to removal of silt and sand from Moosi River bed to respondent No8, they are heard and disposed of together. Heard Sri P. Nageswara Rao, learned Counsel for the petitioner in W.P. No.15944 of 2009, Sri C. Venkat Yadav, learned Counsel for the petitioner in W.P. No.17327 of 2009, learned Government Pleader for Industries, Sri G. Elisha, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.7 – Gram Panchayat and Smt. N. Shobha, learned Counsel for respondent No.8. In these two Writ Petitions, the main grievance of the petitioners is that the work relating to removal of silt and sand in Moosi River bed surrounding Jajireddygudem Village was entrusted to respondent No.7 by the Government and its functionaries and that respondent No.7 in turn entrusted this work to respondent No.8 on nomination basis, without calling for tenders. Separate counter affidavits have been filed by respondent Nos.5, 7 and 8 in WP.No.15944 pf 2009. In the counter affidavit filed by respondent No.5, it has been stated inter alia that in order to increase the storage capacity of Moosi project, respondent No.7 Gram Panchayat was entrusted with the work of desilting and removal of sand on nomination basis, subject to the Gram Panchayat paying Rs.1 crore to the Government and getting the said work executed through another agency. It was further stated that similar procedure was followed in the case of Jajireddygudem Gram Panchayat. Respondent No.7 in its counter affidavit also maintained that the procedure followed in the instant case was similar to the one followed in the case of Itukulapadu Gram Panchayat where the work was entrusted to the Gram Panchayat on nomination basis. It is further stated that the Gram Panchayat, which was the nominee, in turn called for tenders and selected respondent No.8 for execution of the work. According to respondent No.7, it has followed the transparent method of entrusting the work through tender process. It has also been pleaded that in addition to the payment of Rs.1 crore, respondent No.8 agreed to construct water purification plant and to lay C.C. roads in the village with an estimated cost of Rs.5 lakhs each. In his counter affidavit, respondent No.8 has stated that he has participated in the tender process and offered to pay Rs.1 crore in addition to undertaking developmental works such as laying of C.C. roads and construction of water plant which in all would cost more than Rs.35 lakhs. When this Court called upon the learned Government Pleader to explain the procedure followed by the Government in nominating the Gram Panchayats for executing the work of removing the sand and silt, he sought to explain that as the work involved removal of silt along with the sand, such work involves incurring of expenditure by the Government or the Gram Panchayat, as the case may be. Therefore, in order to avoid such expenditure, the Government has evolved a method whereby the work was entrusted to the Gram Panchayat on nomination basis and the Gram Panchayat in turn engages an agency to remove the silt along with the sand and permitting it to sell the said sand in lieu of making any payment to the agency for removal of silt. The learned Government Pleader has pointed out that there is a distinction between the case of sand auction and the work relating to removal of silt along with sand and that while the procedure prescribed under the Andhra Pradesh Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966 for holding auction applies to the former work, the same has no application for the latter work. During the course of hearing of this case, we felt that the understanding between respondent Nos.7 and 8 that the latter will execute certain developmental works in the Gram Panchayat in addition to payment of Rs.1 crore was not properly manifested in the agreement between the said two respondents. In the absence of a specific condition in the agreement imposing the obligation on respondent No.8 to execute those works, the very enforceability of such understanding was itself in doubt. Therefore, to show the bona fides of respondent No.8 to abide by the understanding, we directed him to deposit Rs.40 lakhs in addition to the sum of Rs.1 crore already paid by him. Accordingly, respondent No.8 deposited the said amount. Respondent No.8 also filed an affidavit stating that in view of the deposit of Rs.40 lakhs towards his commitment for undertaking developmental works such as laying of C.C. roads, construction of water plant etc., he may be relieved of his obligation to undertake those developmental works. At the hearing, the learned counsel for respondent No.8 fairly submitted that her client has no objection for appropriation of the said amount of Rs.40 lakhs towards developmental works. On the peculiar facts of this case, we refrain from giving any finding on the legality or otherwise of the method adopted by the State Government in nominating the Gram Panchayats for removal of the sand and the silt. This issue can be decided in an appropriate case. During the course of hearing of this case, Sri P.Nageswara Rao and Sri C. Venkat Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioners, submitted that if proper auction is held, the government will get far higher revenue. They have given out to the Court that if sufficient time is given, they will procure the bidders and place their particulars before the Court. Accordingly, this Court adjourned the case on two or three occasions, but neither counsel was able to furnish the names of the bidders, who are prepared to pay higher amounts. Therefore, we felt that deposit of Rs.40 lakhs by respondent No.8 in addition to Rs.1 crore paid by him has adequately safeguarded the government’s revenue. In our view, public interest will be sufficiently safeguarded, if the sum of Rs.40 lakhs deposited by respondent No.8 and lying with respondent No.7 Jajireddygudem Gram Panchayat is remitted to respondent No.1 and the said amount is spent by respondent No.1 towards developmental activities such as laying of roads, supply of protected drinking water etc., in Jajireddygudem Gram Panchayat area and also other areas falling within Arvapally Mandal, Nalgonda District. Accordingly, respondent No.7 shall remit the sum of Rs.40,00,000/- deposited by respondent No.8, to the credit of respondent No.1 within a period of four weeks from today. Within eight weeks thereafter, respondent No.1 shall identify the works to be executed in the Gram Panchayat and also in other parts of Arvapalli Mandal and prepare necessary schemes for this purpose. The entire works should be completed within a period of six months from today. The Writ Petitions are accordingly disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Petitions, W.P.M.P.No.20914 of 2009 in W.P. No.15944 of 2009 and W.P.M.P. No.22715 of 2009 in W.P. No.17327 of 2009, filed by the petitioners for interim relief, are disposed of as infructuous. ______________ ANIL R. DAVE, CJ ______________________ C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 26.10.2009 bnr