MOHD SAJID Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR NIZAMABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner seeks a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to issue waybills for transporting sand from Siddapur of Bodhan Mandal, Nizamabad District.

(2.) It is the case of the petitioner that the fifth respondent obtained quarry lease for lifting sand from Siddapur village. The lease is allegedly valid for a period of two years commencing from 1-6-2001 to31-5-2003. It is allowed that the. fifth respondent entered into oral agreement with the petitioner, who pursuant to such oral understanding invested huge amounts and commenced quarry operations. The fifth respondent executed a General Power of Attorney dt. 20-12-2002 enabling the petitioner to remove sand and manage his business by selling the sand. It is further alleged that the fifth respondent appears to have influenced the respondents not to issue waybills. Therefore, present writ petition is filed.

(3.) The quarry lease is granted in accordance with Rule 9-A to 9-X of the A.P. Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966 as amended by G.O.Ms.No. 1, Industries and Commerce Department dt. 1-1-2001, which was published in Gazette on 1-1-2001. These rules do not permit transfer of lease by one lessee to another. Though by virtue of Rule 9-O if the successful tenderer or bidder dies after winning the privilege, the same can be transferred to his legal heirs subject to their willingness. The same is not the case insofar as transfer of sand quarry to third parties is concerned. Under Rule 9H(2) the successful bidder is required to enter into sand lease agreement and the lease period shall commence with effect from the date of execution of the lease deed. Form G-I appended to the rules provides the sand lease agreement. Sub clause (vi) of Clause 6 lays down that a quarry lease granted by scaled tender-cum-public auction is not open for transfer. Therefore, even if there is an agreement between the petitioner and the fifth respondent enabling the former to do business on behalf of the fifth respondent, the law does not recognize such transfer. The transfer of lease, be it by way of G.P.A., is exfacie illegal and the respondents were justified in not granting any waybills to the petitioner. The petitioner has no right to demand that the competent authority should issue way bills to him. The writ petition is misconceived and is accordingly dismissed. No costs.