Pinaki Chandra Ghose, ACJ.
This appeal is directed against an order passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 29908 of 2011.
The facts of the case as stated by the writ petitioner are that he is holding a lease of Yeragama Sand Reach, Sarubujji Mandal, Srikakulam District. The Assistant Director of Mines and Geology, Srikakulam issued an auction notification No. 4415/VG/2002, dated 22.6.2011 in respect of seized illegally excavated sand on the banks of Vamsadhara river within the limits of several villages of Srikakulam District including Karajada Village. The quantity is about 8715 cubic meters, which, ought to be lifted within a month in terms of the said notification, which is also annexed to the appeal and being appearing at page 27 of the material papers.
It appears that the 4th respondent was declared as the highest bidder in respect of the said auction and subsequently his bid was confirmed on 20.7.2011. It has been specifically mentioned in the said notification which reads as follows:
“Further extension will not be entertained and stock available at the places mentioned above is treated as Government property. The details of permits are mentioned above”.
It appears from the said permit that the question of further extension will not be entertained and that was the criteria to lift the goods lying thereat. It was further mentioned in the said permit that permission was granted upto 20.8.2011. It appears that in spite of the said time having been fixed in the said notification, the 4th respondent only lifted 366 cubic metres of the sand out of the total stock of 8715 cubic metres. It appears that the Government on being applied by the said writ petitioner, accorded extension of time upto three months for lifting of the balance quantity. The grievance of the writ petitioner before the Court was that the permission and extension, which was granted by the authority in favour of the 4th respondent are in violation of Rule 9-K(3) of the A.P. Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules”) and further relied upon a decision of the Division Bench of this Court in M.V.Siva Prasad vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh and Others (2010(2) ALD 288 (DB)).
Rule 9-K reads thus:
“(1) The Government shall have the power to cancel the auction conducted and confirmation orders issued thereon by the competent authority duly recording its reasons thereof.
(2) The Government shall have the power to condone the delay in issue of confirmation orders, execution of lease deed, etc., for the valid reasons to be recorded.
(3) The Government shall have the power to issue orders/clarifications, if any, not specifically mentioned in implementation of these rules.”
It appears to us that Rule 9-L of the Rules also should have been considered at the time of granting such extension by the said authorities. Rule 9-L of the said Rules provides as follows:
“ The successful tenderer or bidder shall have no claims for any compensation due to floods or heavy rains or any other situation and extension of the lease period shall not be granted under any circumstances.”
It further appears to us that so far as Rule 9-L is concerned, it has been specifically stated that the successful tenderer or bidder shall have no claims for any compensation due to floods or heavy rains or any other situation and extension of the lease period shall not be granted under any circumstance.
It has to be kept in mind that the said Rule has two parts. First limb therein prescribes the competent authority entertaining any claim by the successful tenderer and the other limb, prohibits the extension of lease under any circumstances.
In our considered opinion, the second limb applies in the facts and circumstances of this case. The licence which was granted to the auction purchaser as it has been specifically stated in the said permission that the permit is granted only for a year. In our opinion, the second limb of Rule 9-L is also applicable to the licensee as the licensee cannot have any right better than that of a leaseholder.
In view of that, we hold that such extension, which was granted by the authorities is in contravention of the Rules framed under the said Act and accordingly no permission could have been granted by the said authority. Accordingly, the permission cannot be given effect to and is hereby set aside and we only place it on record that the learned Single Judge has missed the second limb of Rule 9-L of the Rules, which has been laid down in the said Rules. In our opinion, that question should have been taken into account in deciding the matter in question. Accordingly, we set aside the order passed by the learned Single Judge and allow the writ petition by quashing the extension, which was granted by the authorities in favour of the 4th respondent.
For the reasons stated herein above, the writ appeal is allowed. No costs.