ORDER
L. Narasimha Reddy, J.
1. The petitioner is a Boatsmen Labour Contract Co-operative Society, having been registered under the A. P. Co-operative Societies Act. The District Level Committee on Sand Auctions, Guntur, the 2nd respondent herein had proposed to auction the leasehold rights for lifting of sand in sand bearing areas between KM 59.0 and KM 72.0 of the right flood bank of River Krishna for the period from 20-6-2001 to 19-6-2003. The petitioner participated in the auction and emerged as the highest bidder for a sum of Rs. 26,10,000/- for 1st year and Rs. 28,71,000/- for 2nd year. Lease Deed to that effect was also executed on 20-6-2001.
2. Placing reliance on Sub-rule (3) of Rule 9-B of the Andhra Pradesh Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966, as amended in G. O. Ms. No. 1 Industries and Commerce Department dated 1-1-2001, the petitioner claimed 10% concession in the lease amount. When the respondent did not extend the benefit, he has filed the present writ petition.
3. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, the facts of petitioner being a registered society, its having participated in the auction, and its having been granted the lease for the period referred to above are not disputed. The denial of the benefit of 10% concession is sought to be justified on the ground that once the petitioner had participated in the auction and emerged as the highest bidder, he is not entitled for the benefit. Several Interim orders came to be passed from time to time depending on the developments at various stages.
4. Sri B. Adinarayana Rao, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the concession of 10% in the bid or tender amount in favour of the Boatsmen Co-operative Societies is absolute and unconditional. He submits that there is nothing in the rules to indicate that where a society participates in the auction and emerges as the highest bidder, it would forego the benefit of 10% concession. He also submits that during the first year, the petitioner was required to pay the entire lease amount on the ground that the matter relating to the extension of benefit is under consideration of the Government. The petitioner was also made to pay the entire lease amount for the 3 quarters without extending the benefit of concession. He further submits that the very fact that the petitioner was extended the benefit of quarterly instalments which is available only in cases of Boatsmen Co-operative Societies is sufficient to establish that the respondents have treated the petitioner as eligible for the benefit.
5. Sri Ramesh Ranganathan, the learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondents, submits that the provision relating to concession for the bid is conceived to protect the Co-operative Societies which are not in financially sound condition to compete with other bidders and not to help such of the Societies which are sound enough to compete with any other bidders. Referring to the facts of the case, he submits that the petitioner was so financially sound that he could compete with all the participants and emerged as the highest bidder. It is his contention that the extension of 10% concession to the petitioner would negate the very spirit underlying the provision. So far as the working of the lease is concerned, the learned Additional Advocate General submits that the petitioner himself dragged the matter in furnishing bank guarantee between 30-4-2003 to 20-6-2003 and in that view of the matter, even if the petitioner is otherwise eligible for the benefit of 10% concession, necessary deductions have to be made for the corresponding period.
6. The status of the petitioner, namely a registered Boatsmen Co-operative Society is not in dispute. The provision on the basis of which the petitioner is claiming the benefit of concession reads as under :–
“9-B (3) : The Reaches identified in Major Rivers where the sand is lifted and carried by means of boats, the Registered Boatsmen Co-op. Society registered under the Andhra Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1964 shall be given preference by allowing 10% concession on the highest bid/tendered amount offered in the Auction Hall. The Concessional knocked amount be paid by the successful registered Boatsmen’s Cooperative Society in not more than four equal quarterly instalments well before commencement of each quarter. If there is more than one Boatsmen Co-operative Society participating in the Auction and claims for the same reach, local registered Boatsmen Cooperative Society shall be given preference. However, if there is more than one local Registered Boatsmen Society participating in the auction and claims for the same reach the successful bidder/tenderer shall be decided by drawing lots. If non-local Societies participate and claim for the same reach the successful bidder/tenderer shall be declared by drawing lots among the other non-local registered Co-operative Societies.”
7. The petitioner participated in the auction held for the purpose of grant of leasehold rights in respect of the reach and for the period referred to above. The only ground on which the petitioner is denied the benefit of 10% concession on the highest bid is, that the petitioner itself had emerged as the highest bidder. It may be true that the provision is intended to help the registered Boatsmen Co-operative Societies which may otherwise be not in a position to compete with other agencies or individuals. But there is nothing in this Rule or any other provision in the Rules to indicate that once such a society participates in the auction or where it emerges as the highest bidder, it shall not be entitled for the benefit of 10% concession. The language employed to Rule 9-B(3) is absolute and does not leave any scope for restricting the extension of benefit.
8. There is an intrinsic evidence to show that the respondents themselves were convinced that the petitioner was entitled for the benefit. Rule 9-H prescribes the manner of making deposit of the lease amount for the 1st year and Rule 9-P for payment of lease amount of the 2nd year. An exception from this method of deposits is carved out, in respect of Boatsmen Co-operative Societies in whose favour the leases are granted. Rule 9-B(3) itself provides for grant of not more than four equal quarterly instalments in respect of both the years. The petitioner was extended such a benefit. But for the satisfaction of the respondents that the petitioner is entitled for the benefit under Rule 9-B(3), they would not have extended the facility of quarterly instalments to the petitioner. Viewed from any angle, denial of the benefit of 10% concession to the petitioner does not appear to be correct or in consonance with the relevant provision. Hence this Court holds that the petitioner was entitled for the extension of benefit of 10% concession on the highest bid/tendered amount, as provided for under Rule 9-B(3).
9. The two years period of lease has come to an end by 20-6-2003. While it is the ease of the petitioner that he is entitled for extension of lease for the corresponding period during which he was prevented from operating, the learned Additional Advocate General submits that the handicap, if any, suffered by the petitioner was only till 30-4-2003 and not beyond that.
10. It is true that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Beg Raj Singh v. State of U.P., , has held that it is competent for courts to grant relief in such matters, to put the parties in the position where they ought to have been, but for any Illegality committed by the other party. However, application of such principle by this Court would have been possible for this Court, if only there did not exist any dispute as regards certain relevant and important facts. In view of the complicated nature of the facts, which need recording of a finding as to whether the petitioner was prevented from operating the quarry and if so, on what basis and with effect from what date, this Court cannot undertake an adjudication into such questions.
11. It is only when the petitioner makes an appropriate representation to the District Level Committee, and when the Committee in turn passes appropriate orders after referring to the relevant facts, that a clear picture can emerge. Having regard to the pronouncement of this Court as to the entitlement of the petitioner to the extent of 10% concession, the District Level Committee may itself come forward with a kind solution. It is only after such an exercise, that the petitioner may be satisfied with the decision of the committee or may complain of his grievance. Hence the writ petition is allowed with the following directions.
(a) The petitioner shall be entitled to be extended the benefit of 10% concession on the biggest bid tender amount in the matter of sand quarry lease for the period between 20-6-2001 to 19-6-2003 for the reach referred to above;
(b) It shall be open for the petitioner to make a representation within two weeks from the date of obtaining a copy of this order, to the District Level Committee narrating the facts relating to the disability or loss which it may have suffered and the nature of relief it seeks to be extended;
(c) On receipt of such representation, the District Level Committee shall pass appropriate orders within four weeks thereafter. It shall be open to the petitioner to work out its remedies, depending upon the decision of the committee.
No costs.