THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No :16151 of 2007 Date: 24.6.2010 Between:
Damuluru Boatsmen and Sand Loading Unloading Labour Cooeprative Society Ltd., Ibrahimapatnam, Krishna District.
. PETITIONER AND The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Department of Mines & Geology, Hyderabad and others.
. RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri C.V.R. Rudra Prasad Counsel for the Respondents : G.P. for Mines & Geology The Court made the following :
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No :16151 of 2007 ORDER:
This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in not giving 10% concession to the petitioner on the bid amount in respect of Guntupalli Sand Reach, Ibrahimpatnam Mandal, Krishna District, as illegal and arbitrary.
The petitioner sought for setting aside the order dated 3.7.2007 of respondent No.4, whereby, he directed the petitioner to pay the amount without allowing 10% concession to it.
I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Mines and Geology.
The petitioner is a local Boatsmen Co-operative Society. It was given preferential treatment by granting lease in respect of Gantupalli Sand Reach. The work order was issued for one year, i.e., 2007-08. As it was denied the concession at 10%, as envisaged under Rule 9B(3) of the Andhra Pradesh Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966 (for short ‘the Rules), which was in force at the relevant point of time and in ignorance of the said Rule, respondent No.4 issued letter dated 3.7.2007 directing the petitioner to pay the amounts without such concession, the petitioner filed the present writ petition.
Rule 9-B(3) reads thus:
“The Reaches identified in Major Rivers where the sand is lifted and carried by means of boats, the Registered Boatsmen Coop. Society registered under the Andhra Pradesh Coop. Societies Act, 1964 shall be given preference by allowing 10% concession on the highest bid/tendered amount offered in the
Auction Hall. The Concessional knocked amount be paid by the successful Registered Boatsmen’s Co-operative Society in not more than four equal quarterly instalments well before commencement of each quarter. If there is more than one Boatsmen Co-operative Society participating in the Auction and claims for the same Reach, local registered Boatsmen Co-operative Society shall be given preference. However, if there is more than one local Registered Boatsmen Society participating in such auction and claims for the same Reach,
the successful bidder/tenderer shall be decided by drawing lots. If non- local societies participate and claim for the same Reach, the successful bidder/tenderer shall be declared by drawing lots among the other non-local registered Co-operative Societies.”
At the hearing, learned Government Pleader stated that the above said Rule has been replaced by Rule 9-C later. It was also conceded by the learned Government Pleader that even Rule 9-C which was introduced subsequent to the award of lease in favour of the petitioner provided for such a concession.
In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, they sought to justify the denial of concession to the petitioner on various grounds. However, at the hearing, learned Government Pleader is unable to justify those reasons with reference to Rules 9B(3) or 9-C of the Rules.
It is not in dispute that the petitioner is a registered Boatsmen Co- operative Society and was accordingly given preference in awarding sand quarry to it. That being the case, the petitioner is automatically entitled to 10% concession on the highest bid/tendered amount offered in the auction in terms of the above mentioned Rules. The petitioner’s entitlement for such concession is not circumscribed by any further condition, much less, those which are mentioned in the counter affidavit.
In this view of the matter, I am of the opinion that the petitioner is entitled to 10% concession, as envisaged under the above referred Rule.
Learned Government Pleader submitted that the petitioner is liable to pay dues to the respondents and that the respondents may be permitted to withhold/deduct the amounts equivalent to 10% concession from out of those dues.
I find this submission reasonable and accordingly the respondents are directed to adjust the amount of 10% concession from out of the amounts payable by the petitioner.
Subject to the above directions, the writ petition is allowed. No costs.
C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY,J DATE: 24th June, 2010 pnb