Vagdevi And Vishnavi Minerals vs. The State Of Andhra Pradesh

Held

The Court held that the contentions raised by the petitioner questioning the competence of respondent no.4 were untenable and rejected them. The Court noted that proceedings of the Collector & District Magistrate, dated 21.08.2024, indicated that the Joint Collector was kept in-charge for overall sand operations in the district, following instructions from the Chief Secretary. The Court reasoned that "overall sand operations" would necessarily include the power to revoke work orders. Furthermore, the work orders themselves were issued by the Joint Collector. Therefore, respondent no.4 was vested with the necessary authority. The learned single judge was found to have considered the material and contentions in the proper perspective and rightly dismissed the writ petitions. The Court found no merit in the appeals warranting interference.

Facts

The petitioner, Vagdevi And Vishnavi Minerals, emerged as the successful bidder for sand extraction in two reaches. A letter of award was issued on October 16, 2024. Subsequently, the District Mines and Geology Officer issued a show-cause notice for alleged violation of tender conditions. The petitioner submitted an explanation. However, the Joint Collector & Additional District Magistrate (respondent no.4), who the petitioner argued lacked authority, revoked the letter of award. A previous writ petition challenging this revocation was allowed, remanding the matter. The Joint Collector then issued proceedings dated November 28, 2024, cancelling the work orders. The petitioner filed two writ petitions challenging these cancellation proceedings, which were dismissed by a learned single judge. These writ appeals are filed against the single judge's common order.

Key Issues

1. Whether respondent no.4, the Joint Collector & Additional District Magistrate, possessed the power and authority to revoke the work order issued to the petitioner, as per G.O.Ms.No.43, Industries & Commerce (Mines-III) Department, dated 08.07.2024? Petitioner's argument: The petitioner contended that only the District Level Sand Committee is competent to oversee sand operations and cannot delegate these powers. Therefore, respondent no.4's order revoking the work order was beyond his authority and ultra vires. They relied on G.O.Ms.No.43. Revenue's argument: The State contended that the petitioner furnished false information regarding dues to the Mines Department and GST certificate validity. They argued that pursuant to directions from the Chief Secretary, the District Collector issued proceedings designating the Joint Collector as in-charge for overall sand operations, thereby granting him the power to revoke the work order. They relied on proceedings Ref. Procs.No.Lands-1/497444/2024, dated 21.08.2024.