( 1 ) INVOKING the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of india, the petitioner, who is a Sand Contractor, has filed this writ petition praying for the following relief:to issue an order or writ, one in the nature of writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in not putting Pulligadda Sand Reach No. II of pulligadda Village, Avanigadda Mandal, Krishna District, for public auction for issuance of temporary permits and granting temporary permits continuously to respondent No. 3 from time to time as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to Rule 9l of the A. P. Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966 and consequently call for the records and direct respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to put Pulligadda Sand Reach No. II, pulligadda Village, Avanigadda Mandal, Krishna District, for public auction for quarrying sand for one year or issuance of temporary permits and pass such other order or orders as the Hon ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

( 2 ) PURSUANT to a Tender Notification bearing No. 1301/2003 issued on 13-8-2003, for leasing out Pulligadda Sand Reach No. II by sealed tender-cum-public auction for a period of 15 days, it is the case of the petitioner that respondent No. 3, who was the highest bidder in the auction, was granted temporary permit on 4-9-2003 valid from 8-9-2002 upto 19-9-2003. Thereafter, it is the case of the petitioner that respondent No. 2 instead of inviting tenders for leasing out and granting temporary permits, went on granting temporary permits in succession in favour of respondent No. 3, and the last such temporary permit was granted on 26-2-2004 valid upto 10-3-2004. Assailing the action of respondent No. 2, in granting temporary permits to respondent No. 3 in succession, without putting the Reach in question to auction by way of tender-cum-public auction, as illegal and arbitrary, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. It is the case of the petitioner that there is no provision either in the A. P. Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966 (for short the Rules ) or in the Mines and Minerals (Development and regulation) Act, 1957 (for short the Act ) which invests power with the respondents to grant temporary permits in succession only to one person without conducting any auction.

( 3 ) HEARD the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Advocate general on behalf of Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and the learned counsel for respondent No. 3

( 4 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner submits that pursuant to the Tender notification dated 13-8-2003, issued for leasing out the Reach in question, respondent No. 3, who was the highest bidder, was granted temporary permit for a period of 15 days by respondent No. 2. After expiry of the said period, respondent No. 2 instead of putting the Reach to public auction, is granting temporary permits to respondent No. 3 in succession, which is illegal and arbitrary. She submits that as per Rule 9l of the Rules, in respect of areas which are not leased out by sealed tender-cum-public auction, the District Level committee shall make alternative arrangements for quarrying sand by way of temporary permits for periods not exceeding 15 days, and there is no provision either in the Act or in the Rules which permits respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to grant temporary permits to one single individual in succession. She submits that if the Reach in question is put to public auction, it would fetch much higher amounts than what respondent No. 3 is paying at present. She submitted that the action of respondent nos. 1 and 2 in not putting the Reach in question to public auction and granting temporary permits to one single individual in succession, is contrary to the provisions of the Act and the Rules framed thereunder, and prayed that the action of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in granting temporary permits to respondent no. 3 in succession, be declared a