Dismissed

M.V. Subba Reddy, v. The District Level Sand Committee

Telangana HC24 Apr 2007WP/6713/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is a writ petition regarding the granting of a temporary permit for sand quarrying. The petitioner challenged an auction conducted by the District Level Sand Committee. The Court observed that since the auction had already been held and the permit period expired, no matter survived for adjudication.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed with observation that first respondent may conduct fresh auction after following necessary procedure under the Rules.

M.V. Subba Reddy, Vs The District Level… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Telangana HC (2007)

¶1

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.6713 of 2007

¶3

Dated: 24-04-2007

¶4

Between:

¶5

M.V. Subba Reddy.

¶6

..... PETITIONER

¶7

AND

¶8

The District Level Sand Committee, rep. by its Chairman, Rajahmundry, East Godavari, and others.

¶9

.....RESPONDENTS

¶10

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.6713 of 2007

¶11

ORDER:

¶12

The District Level Sand Committee, first respondent herein, conducted auction to grant temporary permit/lease for sand reach at package No.6, Gowthami Left Bank from kilometers 1/000 to 9/000 and from kilometers 3/000 to 5/000 Vasista Right Bank ramp for a period of fifteen days from 19.02.2007 to 05.03.2007. In said auction conducted on 19.02.2007, the petitioner became highest bidder at Rs.3,00,000/-. The petitioner was accordingly granted temporary permit/lease initially for fifteen days from 01.03.2007 to 15.03.2007. The period was extended subsequently for another period of fifteen days from 16.03.2007 to 30.03.2007. Yet again considering the request of the petitioner, the period was extended for six days from 31.03.2007 to 05.04.2007. When said period/lease was existing, first respondent issued notice No.1908/TP-SAND/2007 dated 31.03.2007 inviting sealed tenders of issue of temporary permit/lease for quarrying sand at package No.6 for a period of fifteen days. The auction was to be held on 06.04.2007. Aggrieved by the same, instant writ petition is filed.

¶13

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Rule 9(l) of the Andhra Pradesh Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966 (the Rules, for brevity) enables first respondent to grant temporary permit/lease for fifteen days and the same can be extended not exceeding sixty days. According to the learned counsel, when the petitioner is willing to enhance lease amount, it was improper on the part of first respondent to have granted lease only for six days i.e., from 31.03.2007 to 05.04.2007.

¶14

After getting instructions, the learned Government Pleader for Mines and Geology, submits that the auction was held on 06.04.2007 leasing out the area for a period of fifteen days in favour of third respondent. He also submits that the petitioner was granted two extensions and as the committee felt that better price would be obtained, the auction was held on 06.04.2007. He further submits that in the auction held on 06.04.2007, the highest bid was at Rs.3,10,000/-, which was accepted and temporary permit/lease was accordingly granted to third respondent.

¶15

Aggrieved by the auction to be held on 06.04.2007, instant writ petition is filed. As the auction was held on 06.04.2007 granting temporary permit/lease for a period of fifteen days and even the period of fifteen days is over as of today, nothing survives for adjudication in this writ petition. This Court, however, observes that if it is decided to do so, first respondent may conduct fresh auction after following necessary

¶16

procedure under the Rules.

¶17

The writ petition, with the above observations, is accordingly

¶18

dismissed. No costs. _____________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) 24^th April, 2007 ghn

M.V. Subba Reddy, v. The District Level Sand Committee

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.V. Subba Reddy, v. The District Level Sand Committee

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pydah Padmaja, Vs The Regional Joint Commissioner

K.Hanumanthu, Vs The Assistant Commissioner of Endowments

Mamidisetti Venkateswara Rao Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by its principal

Akula Venkatesh Vs The Tahsildar, Mandal Revenue Office

Sri.N.Ramakrishna Reddy Vs The Revenue Divisional Officer

Smt. Guduru Asha, Vs The M.R.O