The Hon’ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy Writ Petition No.24122 of 2007 Dated 18th June, 2010 Between: B.Rama Murthy …Petitioner And The District Collector, Vizinagaram District and 2 others …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : Mr.Kuriti Bhaskara Rao Counsel for respondent Nos.1 & 2: AGP for Mines and Geology. Counsel for respondent No.3: Mr.A.Jagannadha Rao The Court made the following: Order: This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the inaction of respondent Nos.1 and 2, in preventing respondent No.3 from excavating sand in Survey No.219-P of Penta Village, Bobbili Mandal, Vizianagaram District, contrary to the A.P.Mines and Mineral Concession Rules, 1966, as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner is an agriculturist of the above- mentioned village. He averred that respondent No.3, who was granted sand quarry lease under agreement, dated 05- 07-2007, had been indiscriminately excavating sand to a depth of about 5 to 10 meters as against the maximum depth of one meter envisaged under the Rules. According to the petitioner, he and several other villagers made representation, dated 20-09-2007 to respondent No.1, but of no avail. Respondent No.2 filed a counter-affidavit wherein he h a s inter alia stated that the quarry lease in favour of respondent No.3 was granted in the river bed of Vegavathi permitting him to excavate sand to a depth of one meter and that there is no evidence that the lessee has used machinery in digging the same and has formed an approach road through patta lands. Ordinarily, this Writ Petition should have been dismissed as infructuous with the expiry of lease period, but the material available on record supports the plea of the petitioner that there was indiscriminate excavation of sand. One of the two photographs submitted by the petitioner to the Court shows that the sand was excavated to a depth of more than one meter. Though the petitioner specifically pleaded about his making representation to respondent No.1 in his affidavit, respondent No.2 failed to advert to the same. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 being functionaries of the State at the District Level are liable to protect the interests of agriculturists and prevent excavation of sand in rivers and rivulets in any manner, which would prejudice the interests of agriculturists. The failure of respondent Nos.1 and 2 in addressing the genuine grievance of the petitioner and other agriculturists is quite patent in this case. The respondents are, therefore, directed to ensure that atleast in future, the sand contractors are not permitted to carry on sand excavations in the river beds contrary to the statutory rules and tender conditions. Subject to the above directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Petition, WPMP.No.31436 of 2007, filed by the petitioner for interim relief, is disposed of as infructous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dated 18th June, 2010 lur