L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. ( 1 ) THESE two writ petitions relate to grant of lease to quarry sand in reach No. 15 of Krishna River in Achampeta mandal, Guntur District. Hence, they are disposed of through a common order. ( 2 ) THE petitioners in both the writ petitions are Boat Workers Co-operative societies. The petitioner in W. P. No. 12267 of 2003 is impleaded as respondent No. 4 in w. P. No. 13627 of 2003. For the sake of convenience, the petitioner in W. P. No. 12267 of 2003 is referred to as the 1st petitioner and the petitioner in W. P. No. 13627 of 2003, as the 2nd petitioner. ( 3 ) THE A. P. Minor Mineral Concession rules, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as the rules ) deal with grant of leases in respect of minor minerals. Sand is classified as a minor mineral. With a view to make special provisions in relation to sand, the government of Andhra Pradesh had amended the Rules by issuing G. O. Ms. No. 1, dated 1-1-2001. Through this amendment, Rules 9b to 9x were added. The Rules provide for certain concessions in the bid amount in favour of Boatmen Co-operative Societies in the matter of grant of such lease subject to certain conditions. ( 4 ) THE lease for quarrying sand in respect of the Districts are required to be conducted by the District Level Committees, constituted under Rule 9 (B) (2 ). The District panchayat Officer happens to be the convenor of the Committee. The District panchayat Officer, Guntur, issued auction notice dated 11-6-2003, inviting tenders and proposing to conduct auctions in respect of grant of lease for quanying sand in several reaches of Krishna river. We are concerned with Reach No. 15. The minimum bid is fixed at Rs. 19,04,040/- for this reach. ( 5 ) APPREHENDING that the District level Committee may not extend the benefit of concession of lease amount in respect of reach No. 15, W. P. No. 12267 of 2003 is filed by the Koneru Sand and Boat Workers co-operative Society Limited, the 1st petitioner. Even while this writ petition was pending, the respondents therein had proceeded with the auction of the leasehold rights of Reach No. 15. It was treated as the one in respect of which 10% concession in the lease amount is available for the Boatmen Co-operative Society. Even while this writ petition was pending, the respondents therein had proceeded with the auction of the leasehold rights of Reach No. 15. It was treated as the one in respect of which 10% concession in the lease amount is available for the Boatmen Co-operative Society. In addition to two such local societies, certain individuals also participated in the auction. The bids went up to Rs. 61,00,000/ -. Thereafter, a limited bid was conducted between both the Societies. The 1st petitioner became the highest bidder at Rs. 96,00,000/ -. ( 6 ) W. P. No. 13627 of 2003 is filed by m/s. Kastala Sand and Board Workers Co-operative society, the 2nd petitioner, challenging the procedure adopted by the respondents in proceeding with the bid between itself and the other society. According to them, the Rules do not provide for such a course of action, and the tie between these two societies ought to have been resolved only through drawal of lots. ( 7 ) THE 1st petitioner contends that though the respondents have extended the benefit of concession of lease amount, they have arbitrarily restricted it to the one on rs. 61,00,000/-, instead of the highest bid, viz. , Rs. 96,00,000/ -. ( 8 ) THE 2nd petitioner submits that once the highest bid offered in the open auction was Rs. 61,00,000/-, the only course open to the respondents was to grant the lease in favour of any of these two societies by drawing lots as contemplated under the relevant Rules. ( 9 ) IN the counter-affidavit filed by the respondents, it is stated that the grievance of the petitioner in W. P. No. 12267 of 2003 stands redressed, in view of the fact that the Reach was treated as the one in respect of which the concession is available to Boatmen Co-operative Societies. They contend that the concession is available only on the highest bid that emerged in the tendering process and since the subsequent bid was confined between the two societies, the benefit is not available for the amount that is fetched thereafter. ( 10 ) IN response to the allegations made by the 2nd petitioner, it is stated that it is on the acceptance and at the request of both the societies that the auction was held between them. ( 10 ) IN response to the allegations made by the 2nd petitioner, it is stated that it is on the acceptance and at the request of both the societies that the auction was held between them. It is also contended that by making a request to undertake such auction, the petitioners in both the writ petitions have waived their right for being granted the lease by way of drawal of lots. ( 11 ) SRI Raghuveer Reddy, learned counsel for the 1st petitioner, submits that there does not exist any justification for the respondents in restricting the concession to the one on Rs. 61,00,000/-, when the highest bid is Rs. 96,00,000/ -. He places reliance upon the judgment of this Court in W. P. No. 3907 of 2003 dated 11 -7-2003. ( 12 ) SRI B. Adinarayana Rao, learned counsel for the 2nd petitioner, submits that rule 9b (3) provides for grant of lease in favour of the Boat Workers Co-operative society by drawal of lots, in the event of there being more than one societies; and that the action of the respondents in conducting bid between both the societies is contrary to the said Rule. According to him, the rights conferred under Statutory Rules cannot be waived. He has also disputed the authenticity of the consent said to have been given by his client for conducting the auction. The question of conducting the auction of the rights in respect of the present Reach under Rule 9b (3) would have arisen, asserts the learned Counsel, if only it was notified as a fact that the sand in this reach is lifted and carried by means of boats. According to him, such a declaration was not given and as such the lease ought not to have been dealt with under the said provision. ( 13 ) THE learned Additional Advocate-General submits that the restriction of the concession to Rs. 61,00,000/- accords with the spirit and letter of the Rules. It is also his case that it is the petitioners in both the writ petitions that have insisted upon conducting auctions between themselves and the unsuccessful party cannot turn around and challenge the said procedure. ( 14 ) AN important provision which has bearing upon the controversy in this writ petition is Rule 9b (3 ). It is also his case that it is the petitioners in both the writ petitions that have insisted upon conducting auctions between themselves and the unsuccessful party cannot turn around and challenge the said procedure. ( 14 ) AN important provision which has bearing upon the controversy in this writ petition is Rule 9b (3 ). It provides for giving preference in favour of the registered boatmen Co-operative Societies, in the matter of grant of sand quarry lease and also extension of 10% concession on the highest bid offered in the auction. The procedure for resolving the dispute where more societies than one participated in the bids is also provided. It reads as under:"9b (3) The Reaches identified in Major rivers where the sand is lifted and carried by means of boats, the Registered Boatmen Co-operative society registered under the Andhra pradesh Co-operative 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 Boatmen Co-operative society in not more than four equal quarterly instalments well before commencement of each quarter. If there is more than one boatman Co-operative Society participating in the auction and claims for the same reach the successful bidder/tenderer shall be decided by drawing lots. If non-local societies participates and claims for the same reach the successful bidder/tenderer shall be declared by drawing lots among the other non-local registered Co-operative societies. " ( 15 ) BEFORE discussing the matter on merits, the contention raised by Sri B. Adinarayana Rao as to the very applicability of Rule 9b (3) needs to be dealt with. According to him, it was not notified by the respondents that the sand in the Reach in question is lifted and carried by means of boats. On this premise, he submits that dealing with the auction of leasehold rights for that Reach under this provision was permissible. This objection cannot be sustained for more reasons than one. Firstly, if at all any one, it is the 2nd petitioner that was the beneficiary of the action of the respondents in treating the Reach as the one under the said provision. This objection cannot be sustained for more reasons than one. Firstly, if at all any one, it is the 2nd petitioner that was the beneficiary of the action of the respondents in treating the Reach as the one under the said provision. Not only that, it had availed the benefit of the preferential rights in driving out the non- society bidders from fray and it came forward to have a limited bid between itself and the 1st petitioner. Therefore, both on the grounds of acquiescence and waiver, the said society cannot be permitted to raise this objection. ( 16 ) THE main grievance of the 1st petitioner stands almost redressed. It apprehended that the auction for the reach may not be held by applying the provisions of Rule 9b (3 ). Since the respondents themselves have extended the benefit under that provision, nothing needs to be adjudicated upon this aspect. ( 17 ) THE 2nd petitioner takes exception to the procedure adopted by the respondents, particularly, in holding the auction between itself and the 1st petitioner. As observed earlier, the highest bid during the auction among all the participants had come up to rs. 61,00,000/ -. Rule 9b (3) provides for grant of lease in favour of Boatmen Co-operative society, by extending the concession at 10% on "the highest bid/tendered amount offered in the Auction Hall". Since there are two societies, the lease is to be granted to one of the societies by drawing lots. Instead of drawing lots, a further auction was held between both the petitioners treating the amount of Rs. 61,00,000/- as the upset bid. ( 18 ) IF the respondents themselves have resorted to this step, exception could certainly have been taken. From the counter-affidavit and the other documents filed along with the same, it is evident that the occasion for undertaking bid between these two societies had arisen only in view of the joint representation submitted by both the petitioners. As soon as the highest figure of rs. 61,00,000/- emerged, the representatives of both the petitioners have submitted a common representation, requesting the Joint collector to conduct auction between themselves. It was in this context, viz. , on the request and with the approval of the petitioners herein, that further auction between both of them was held. As soon as the highest figure of rs. 61,00,000/- emerged, the representatives of both the petitioners have submitted a common representation, requesting the Joint collector to conduct auction between themselves. It was in this context, viz. , on the request and with the approval of the petitioners herein, that further auction between both of them was held. ( 19 ) THE petitioners do not dispute the factum of their submitting a joint representation in this regard. An attempt is made on behalf of the 2nd petitioner that the said representation was forcibly extracted and the offer therein was not voluntary. Such a contention would have appealed to the Court if only nothing further took place after the representation. Starting from Rs. 61,00,000/-, the bid between the petitioners gradually went up to rs. 96,00,000/ -. Unless both the petitioners have voluntarily participated in this, any amount of coercion in extracting the consent for such a course of action could not have resulted in such a situation. Therefore, it is the petitioners, through their specific acts, that have waived their right to be granted the lease by drawal of lots. ( 20 ) FURTHER, grant of lease for quarrying sand is not a welfare activity. It is "almost commercial transaction and grant of largesse of the Government, on payment of consideration for it. Extension of 10% concession to boatmen societies is a step to enable them to overcome the handicap. Such a step does not render the grant of lease as a welfare activity. Therefore, acceptance of bid cannot be said to be either illegal or unlawful. This aspect becomes relevant, in the realm of waiver.