AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The petitioners made applications to the first respondent for grant of temporary permits for quarrying sand in reach No.29 VYLB i.e., 13/0 KM to 21/0 KM at Bodaskurru village in East Godavari District on 8-6-1998, 19-6-1998 and 2-7-1998. The petitioners'' applications are not yet considered. The impleaded fourth respondent, namely Sri Vcera Venkata Satyanarayana Agnikula Kshatriya Sand Quarry Labour Cooperative Society, Bodasakurru submitted a representation dated 26-8-1998 to the third respondent-District Collector, East Godavari district requesting him to direct the first respondent to grant temporary permits to quarry the sand in the above reach. The District Collector forwarded that representation to the first respondent with a direction to grant temporary permits to the fourth respondent. On 26-8-1998 itself, the fourth respondent filed application before the first respondent for grant of temporary permits and the first respondent by his proceedings No.3384/Q2/ 97, dated 30-8-1998 granted temporary permits. It is stated that thereafterwards on 14-9-1998 and 20-9-1998 temporary permits were issued to the fourth respondent on the applications made by the fourth respondent on 29-8-1998, 30-8-1998 and 14-9-1998. Coming to know about this, the petitioners filed WPMP No.30651 of 1998 to implead the above Society as respondent No.4. The said WPMP was ordered on 9-9-1998, On service of notice, the fourth respondent has put in appearance and filed counter.
Sri Badana Bhaskara Rao, teamed Counsel for the petitioners contended that the refusal to consider the applications of the petitioners and granting temporary permits to the fourth respondent as dictated by the third respondent-District Collector who is an extraneous agency is arbitrary, unreasonable and violative of the mandatory rules. On the other hand, the learned Government Pleader for Commerce and Industries contended that the policy spelt out in Government Order G.O. Ms. No.328, Industries and Commerce (Mines-1) Department dated 14-9-1998 governs the case on hand and if that policy is applied to the facts of this case, the fourth respondent-society is entitled to preference and therefore no exception can be taken to the action of the first respondent in granting temporary permits in favour of the fourth respondent-society. The learned Counsel for the impleaded fourth respondent would submit that Rule 9-L of the Andhra Pradesh Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966, for short ''the Rules'', confers power on the Director of Mines and Geology to grant permits without resorting to scaled tender or auction procedure.
Before appreciating the rival contentions of the parties, it is relevant to note at the outset that if there is any conflict between the policy spelt out in G.O.Ms. No.328, Industries and Commerce(Mines-I) department dated 14-9-1998 and the statutory rules, the statutory rules should prevail over and hold the field. There is no controversy between the parties that before G.O.Ms. No.328, Industries and Commerce (Mines-I) department dated 14-9-1998 was issued, as per the administrative instructions issued by the Government from time to time, the applications for grant of quarry lease had to be considered in terms of seniority of the applications. The facts stated above make it very clear that if that procedure had to be followed, the applications filed by the petitioners for grant of quarry lease to quarry sand in the reach in question had to be considered in the first instance having regard to their admitted seniority. As could be seen from G.O.Ms, No.328, Industries and Commerce (Mines-I) department dated 14-9-1998, the administrative instructions earlier issued by the Government to consider the applications in terms of seniority arc not withdrawn or repealed. Further, G.O.Ms. No.328 dated 14-9-1998 deals with only grant of sand leases by auction-cum-sealed tender system and it docs not deal with grant of leases by other methods. Alternatively, assuming that G.O.Ms. No.328 dated 14-9-1998 applies to the case on hand, even then, the procedure adopted by the first respondent in granting the lease in favour of the respondent No.4 cannot be sustained. Clause (vii) of G.O.Ms. No.328 provides for a preference in favour of the Boatsmen Cooperative Societies. In the instant case, the claim of the fourth respondent society that it is a Boatsmen Co-operative Society is seriously contested by the petitioner''s Counsel. Even assuming that the fourth respondent-society is a Boatsmen Co-operative Society, it will acquire right to claim preference only if the authorities proceed to dispose of the right of quarrying sand by way of auction. It is nobody''s case that the auction was held and permits arc granted in favour of the fourth respondent-society. It is also relevant to note that clause (vii) applies to quarry of sand in the main rivers and it is stated that Bodaskurru ferry point is not a part of the main river but it is a tributary of Godavari which is a main river.
The argument of the learned Counsel for the fourth respondent that under Rule 9-L of the Rules, the Director of Mines and Geology is armed with necessary power to grant permits to the fourth respondent-society without resorting to sealed tender and auction procedure is not well-founded. Rule 9-L is not at all applicable to the facts of this case. Rule 9-L confers a power on the Director of Mines and Geology department to make arrangements for quarrying sand in only those areas which are not leased out by sealed tender or auction. Admittedly and according to the learned Counsel for all the parties, the area in question was earlier leased out by auction. Alternatively, it may be noted that even assuming that Rule 9-L applies to the facts of this case, the power of the Director to make alternative arrangement for quarrying sand cannot be exercised arbitrarily and unreasonably, and he cannot be permitted to pick and choose applicants for the purpose of granting permits on his subjective satisfaction. Rule 9-L does not provide for any procedure as to how the Director shall make alternative arrangements for quarrying sand. However, any procedure that may be adopted by the Director should be in consonance with the principles of fair play, reasonableness and principles of natural justice. If there are more than one application for grant of quarry lease in respect of the same area, fairness and reasonableness require the Director to consider those applications having regard to the relevant seniority of the applications, or atleast to club all the applications together and grant permits to the most suitable persons. Such a procedure was not adopted by the respondents 1 and 2 in the instant case.
There is one more weighty reason to interfere with the action of the respondents 1 and 2 in granting permits to the fourth respondent. Neither the learned Government Pleader for Commerce and Industries nor the learned Counsel for the fourth respondent is in a position to trace the authority of the District Collector, with reference to the rues or any administrative instruction, to direct the first respondent to grant permits to the fourth respondent. It seems that the first respondent was dictated by the District Collector without any authority of law to grant permits in favour of the fourth respondent.
Before concluding, the allegations made by the learned Counsel for die fourth respondent against the petitioners to be noted. According to the learned Counsel, the petitioners have played fraud and they have made several applications in fictitious names. The learned Counsel would maintain that even in this writ petition petitioner Nos. 1, 3 and 5, petitioner Nos.2 and 6 and petitioner Nos.4 and 7 are the same natural persons. But the initials are deliberately stated differently. I do not think it necessary for the Court to go into this factual controversy, and it is for the respondents 1 and 2 to examine and find out whether there is any truth in the allegations of the fourth respondent.
In the result and for the foregoing reasons, I dispose of the writ petition directing the respondents 1 and 2 to consider the applications of the petitioners and the application of the fourth respondent for grant of temporary permits to quarry sand in reach No.29 VYLB i.e., 13/0 KM to 21/0 KM at Bodaskurru village strictly in accordance with the Rules and the relevant administrative instructions issued by the Government from time to time. Liberty is reserved to the fourth respondent to file a representation to the respondents 1 and 2 regarding the alleged fraud committed by the petitioners. In the facts and circumstances of the case the parties are directed to bear their own costs.