All these writ petitions raise a common question relating to grant of extension for quarrying sand by the State Government. However, the facts in W.P.No.39265 of 2013 only are set out herein below in detail, for convenience sake, as there was no serious dispute on the factual content insofar as other cases are concerned. The case of the petitioner is that he has participated in pursuance to the tenders called for by the Project Director, District Water Management Agency in respect of sand quarrying. It is also his case that he subsequently applied for Reach No.6, Gopalapuram by enclosing a demand draft for Rs.5,000/- towards purchase of the application and also further paid an amount of Rs.16,33,000/- towards minimum assured amount. It appears, more than 1,400 persons have applied for different reaches and nearly a sum of Rs.100 crores has thus been collected. When the leases of the existing lease holders was extended upto 21.08.2013, W.P.Nos.22845 and 25115 of 2013 were instituted in this Court. By a common order rendered on 25.10.2013, while setting at naught the notifications, this Court has also set-aside the extension of leases granted in favour of those persons whose lease period expired on 31.03.2013. The case of the petitioner is that since the policy of the State is to allot the reaches by way of draw of lots in terms and in accordance with Rule 9-E and F of A.P. Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966, while the petitioner and others were waiting for the notification to be issued, the State Government issued orders through their memo dated 21.12.2013 extending the lease in favour of the existing lessee for a period of six months or till the sand quantity identified is exhausted. Hence, this writ petition is filed.

2. It is also contended that, when W.P.No.18822 of 2011 and batch of cases were filed alleging depletion of ground water level, all due to heavy illegal sand quarrying operations, the Division Bench of this Court passed restraint orders for sand quarrying operations in the entire State from 01.04.2012 onwards. But however, pursuant to the orders passed by the Supreme Court, permitting sand quarrying, instead of following the policy enunciated in the A.P. Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966, as amended from time to time, extension of lease has been granted.

3. The State Government filed a detailed counter affidavit in the matter. It is admitted that the sixth respondent emerged as a highest bidder in the open auction conducted and he did pay the first year lease amount and also the second year lease amount duly enhancing it by 20% over and above the first year lease amount. Operations could be carried up to 31.03.2012 only. In the meantime, the Division Bench directed stay of sand quarrying operations in the entire State as clearance from the Ministry of Environment and Forests, Government of India has not been obtained. When the matter was carried in appeal to the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court granted permission to the State Government to grant sand quarry leases and also their renewal only after obtaining the clearance from Ministry of Environment and Forests. After obtaining the necessary clearance from the Ministry of Environment and Forests, the Government has passed orders renewing the lease period for 22 reaches in Godavari up to 21.08.2013. It is stated that because of the transporters bandh, as part of Samaikhyandra agitation, the balance quantity of sand could not be lifted. The State Government which has collected the lease amounts from the bidders of sand reaches was required to either refund the money or extend the lease period. Hence, after considering the circumstances, the impugned order of extension has been granted.

4. In the aforesaid background facts, the question that is needed to be examined is whether the State Government has the necessary power and is justified in granting extension of leases in favour of the unofficial respondents in the respective cases.

5. Heard Sri