WP/27380/2005 of Nadigadi Boatsmen Contract Co-Operative Society, Vs The District Collector, on 28 December 2005

WEDNESDAY, THE 28[TH] DAY OF DECEMBER, 2005

W.P.Nos. 27380 & 27658 of 2005

W.P.No. 27380 of 2005

Between:-

Nadigadi Boatsmen Contract Co-operative Society, L. Gannavaram (v), P.Gannavaram Mandal, East Godavari district rep., by its President-YannabathulaSuryanarayana.

--Petitioner

And

The District Collector, East Godavari district at Kakinada and five (5) others.

--Respondents

W.P.No. 27658 of 2005

Between:-

Nadigadi Boatsmen Contract Co-operative Society, L. Gannavaram (v), P.Gannavaram Mandal, East Godavari district rep., by its President-YannabathulaSuryanarayana.

--Petitioner

And

The District Collector, East Godavari district at Kakinada and seven (7) others.

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE V.V.S. RAO

W.P.Nos. 27380 & 27658 of 2005

:C O M M O N O R D E R:

In the auction conducted to lease out the right to quarry sand in Reach Nos. 36 and37 of Godavari (Package No.12), the Nadigadi Boatsmen Contract Co-operativeSociety, L. Gannavaram village, P. Gannavaram mandal, East Godavari (hereinaftercalled ‘the Socieyt’), the petitioner herein, became the highest bidder atRs.32,04,000-00. The 1[st] respondent issued proceedings dated 01-10-2005confirming the lease for a period of one year from 01-10-2005 to 30-09-2006. As perthe conditions of the lease, the Society was required to pay balance of 75% amountin three equal instalments at the rate of Rs.7,20,900-00. The second instalment is payable on 10-12-2005, the third on 10-02-2006 and 4[th] on 10-04-2006. The Societypaid the initial amount towards 25% of the area, after executing the lease deed.

It is the case of the Society that the previous lessee in respect of Reach No.37(Godavari’s left bank of Vainatheya Reach No.37 starts from 7/0 to 12/3 K.M., Ramp9/0 to 9/2 K.M. of K. Munjavaram), did not permit the Society to conduct sand quarryoperations and, therefore, from the date of working the lease the Society is able toremove the sand only from Reach No.37. As the Society was prevented fromremoving the sand from Reach No.37, it gave a complaint to the Station Houseofficer, Police Station, P.Gannavaram on 02-10-2005 and also got issued notice tothe respondents on 03-10-2005. Even before any action could be taken, the Societywas required to pay the second instalment on 10-12-2005 in a sum of Rs.7,20,900-00.

On the premise that the Society is not able to remove the sand from Reach No.37and, therefore, it is not necessary to pay the second instalment for that Reach, theSociety paid a sum of Rs.2,40,300-00 only on 10-12-2005 presumably proportionateamount towards second instalment of Reach No.37. Be that as it is, on 20-12-2005,the Mandal Revenue Officer, P. Gannavaram, on the instructions of 1[st] and 2[nd]respondents directed the Society not to remove any sand from Reach No.36 until thesecond instalment amount is paid fully. Aggrieved by the same, the Society filedW.P.No. 27380 of 2005. The Society also filed W.P.No. 27658 of 2005 aggrieved bythe inaction on the part of the various authorities in not preventing others, who are interfering with the sand quarrying operations of the Society insofar as Reach No.36is concerned.

Conclusion

Initially W.P.No. 27380 of 2005 came on 23-12-2005 and the same was adjournedto enable the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj to getinstructions in the matter. After getting instructions in the matter, learned AssistantGovernment Pleader submits that the request of the Society made in therepresentation dated 03-10-2005 is going to be placed before the District LevelCommittee on 29-12-2005 and that necessary steps are being taken to instruct theStation House Officer, Police Station, P. Gannavaram to do the needful to preventthe third parties in interfering the sand quarrying operations of the Society fromReach No.36 of right bank of Vainatheya. In that view of the matter, it would not beproper to express any opinion on the question whether the Society can split thelease and unilaterally seek to comply with the requirement of payment of instalmentmoney. This question may also be considered by the District Level Committee in thefirst instance.

In the result, recording the submissions of the learned Assistant GovernmentPleader, both the writ petitions are disposed of in the above terms. No costs.

28-12-2005

pvks/*

____________

V.V.S. RAO, J