Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 534 (AP)

G. Suresh Kumar v. Government of Andhra Pradesh

2010-06-29

B.SESHASAYANA REDDY

body2010
Judgment : 1. This Writ Petition has been filed by G. Suresh Kumar represented by the GPA holder-Ch. Srinivasa Rao assailing the action of the respondents in insisting payment of 20% of enhancement of the bid amount for the 2nd year lease period for execution of the lease deed. 2. Background facts, in a nutshell, leading to filling of this writ petition by the highest bidder in auction held for grant of leasehold rights in respect of reach No.41, Penna river, Minagallu Village, Buchired dypalem Mandal, Nellore District, pursuant to the notification dated 26.8.2009, are:- (a) The Petitioner participated in the public auction and became a successful bidder having offered Rs.5,65,00,000/-. The lease period is two years with the condition of payment of 20% of the enhancement on the knocked down bid amount for the 2nd year lease period. The District Collector confirmed the auction on 18.9.2009 on payment of 1/4th of the knocked down bid amount by the petitioner. The Government, vide Memo dated 30.9.2009 granted permission to the petitioner to pay the 1st year lease amount in two equal instalments. Accordingly, the petitioner paid 1st instalment amount of Rs.1,48,35,000/- on 22.9.2009. In the meanwhile, one B. Srinivasulu challenged the Government memo granting payment of bid amount in two instalments to the petitioner by filing Writ Petition No.24328 of 2009. Pending the said writ petition, the petitioner paid the bid amount towards 1st year lease period and consequently, the said Writ Petition came to be disposed of by this Court on 29.3.2010 with the following observation: “the grievance in this petition is against failure of the highest bidder in depositing the entire bid amount which now stands deposited in compliance with the direction of the Court, dated: 15-3-2010, rendering the Writ Petition infractions. The amount having been deposited, the official respondents shall be free to take steps if any called for.” (b) The 1st year lease period came to be expired by 31.3.2010 without any quarrying operations being undertaken by the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner filed representation dated 08.4.2010 requesting the respondents to execute registered sale (sic.lease) deed for the 2nd year lease period. Therefore, the petitioner filed representation dated 08.4.2010 requesting the respondents to execute registered sale (sic.lease) deed for the 2nd year lease period. The 1st respondent considered the representation and issued Memo No.13547/SPIU & SAND/2009-5 dated 24.4.2010 accepting the request of the petitioner for execution of lease deed for 2nd year ending on 31.3.2011 with payment of 20% enhancement on the 1st year knocked down amount, subject to the following conditions: (i) The amount paid by the bidder in the 1st year period is considered towards 2nd year lease amount and the bidder has to pay the 20% enhancement on this amount, along with all other dues to be paid, if any. (ii) the bidder shall not be eligible for compensation for non-operation period in the first year lease, under any circumstances. (iii) the bidder shall execute the lease deed immediately. (iv) the bidder is permitted to pay the 20% enhancement on or before 30-6-2010, in view of the non-conducting of the business in the first year period, after having deposited the amounts” 3. The petitioner filed the writ petition aggrieved by the condition of deposit of 20% of enhancement of the bid amount for execution of the lease deed for 2nd year lease. For better understanding of the grievance of the petitioner, I deem it appropriate to refer paragraph 8 of the affidavit filed in support of the petition, which reads as hereunder:- “I respectfully submit that in pursuance to the condition that was imposed vide memo dated 24.4.2010, I have to pay the 20% enhanced amount on the knocked down bid amount, as the current lease period is treated as second year without considering my difficulties and the said amount I have to pay by 30.6.2010 as per the order. Therefore, I made a representation to the 1st respondent on 5.5.2010 explaining the above situation and my actual position financially or otherwise and requested to treat the current lease executed form 29.4.2010 to 31.3.2011, as first year and waive payment of 20% enhancement amount and further grant one month period, which I lost due to the delayed execution of the lease deed from 1.4.2010 to 29.4.2010, as the period, am entitled for quarrying operation beyond 31.3.2011. The 1st respondent has not considered the said representation dated 5.5.2010 and passed any orders on it. Whereas, the last date for payment of 20% enhanced bid amount is 30.6.2010. The 1st respondent has not considered the said representation dated 5.5.2010 and passed any orders on it. Whereas, the last date for payment of 20% enhanced bid amount is 30.6.2010. Hence this writ petition seeking appropriate orders”. 4. When the writ petition came up for admission, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Mines & Geology takes notice on behalf of the respondents. With the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the writ petition is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage. 5. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Mines & Geology representing the respondents. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was prevented to operate mining activities for the 1st year lease period because of the interim orders passed by this Court at the instance of the third party, namely, B. Srinivasulu and since the petitioner did not carry out the mining operations during 1st year lease period, he is not required to pay 20% enhancement of the bid amount for the 2nd year lease period. Learned counsel took me to the earlier Writ Petition filed by the petitioner as well as the third party in respect of the 1st year lease period. In support of his contention, learned counsel placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in Krishna Country Canal Boat Workers and Labour Contract Co-operative Society Ltd., Krishna District v. Assistant Director of Mines and Geology, Krishna District (1) 2010 (3) ALT 100 = 2010 (2) ALD 286 . 7. Per contra; learned Assistant Government Pleader submits that one of the essential conditions for execution of the 2nd year lease period is payment of 20% enhancement on the bid amount and unless the petitioner satisfies the said condition, he is not entitled to insist the respondents to execute the lease deed for 2nd year lease period. A further submission has been made that lease period cannot be extended for any reason since such extension has been prohibited by Rule 9(L) of the A.P. Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966 (for short, “the Rules”). Reliance has been placed on the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in M.V. Siva Prasad v. Government of Andhra Pradesh (2) 2010 (2) ALT 777 = 2010 (2) ALD 288 (DB). Reliance has been placed on the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in M.V. Siva Prasad v. Government of Andhra Pradesh (2) 2010 (2) ALT 777 = 2010 (2) ALD 288 (DB). It is trite to refer paragraph 22 of the cited judgment, which reads as hereunder:- “The validity of the amended 1996 rules, as notified in G.O.Ms.No.84 dated 10.4.2007, is not under challenge in any of these writ petitions. The validity of the impugned orders have therefore to be decided in the light of the amended 1996 rules notified in G.O.Ms.No.84 dated 10.4.2007 as it is these rules which are presently in force. Rules 9L is in two parts. The first limb of Rule 9-L prohibits the competent authority from entertaining any claim made by a successful tenderer/bidder seeking compensation on account of floods or rains or other situation. The second limb of rule 9-L prohibits grant of extension of lease under any circumstances. Irrespective of the nature of the claim for extension of lease, be it for a valid reason or otherwise, Rule 9-L prohibits the competent authority from granting extension of lease under any circumstances. In view of this prohibition, any order passed by the Government or the Director of Mines granting extension of lease would be ultra vires Rule 9-L of the 1966 Rules” 8. In view of the Division Bench judgment, the request of the petitioner for extension of lease period cannot be considered. The 2nd year lease period commences from 1.4.2010. One of the essential conditions for the 2nd year lease period is payment of 20% enhancement on the bid amount. The petitioner participated in the tender with eyes wide open with regard to the terms and conditions of the auction. Therefore, he cannot be permitted to contend that he is not liable to pay 20% enhancement of the bid amount for execution of the lease deed for the 2nd year lease period. Indeed, the respondents having taken note of the petitioner not carrying out mining operations in the lease premises because of the intervention of the Court orders treated the lease amount paid for 1st year, though in instalments, as the amount paid for 2nd year lease period. What is additionally the petitioner is required to pay is 20% enhancement of the bid amount, which is a condition precedent for execution of the lease for 2nd year lease period. What is additionally the petitioner is required to pay is 20% enhancement of the bid amount, which is a condition precedent for execution of the lease for 2nd year lease period. The condition imposed by the 1st respondent in the proceedings dated 24.4.2010 is in accordance with the terms and conditions of the tender notification. Therefore, I do not see any illegality or irregularity in incorporating the condition in the proceedings issued by the 1st respondent dated 24.4.2010 and the proceedings issued by the 2nd respondent on 29.4.2010 with regard to payment of 20% enhancement of the bid amount. 9. The Writ Petition is devoid of merits and accordingly, the same is hereby dismissed at the admission stage. There shall be no order as to costs.