IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVAT||^^ TUESDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE T ■o PRESENT HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI lA NO: 3 OF 2025 IN WRIT APPEAL NO: 52 OF 2025 lA NO: 3 OF 2025 Between: M/s Vagdevi and Vishnavi Minerals, Rep.by its Proprietor V.S.B Mallapa Rao S/o.Nagabhushanam Aged about 53 years R/o.D.No.84-87 Padmavathi Nagar, Near Ford Showroom Rajamahendravaram, East Godavari District Andhra Pradesh. ...Review Petitioner/Writ Petitioner/Appellant AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep.by its Principal Secretary Mines and Geology Department A.P. Secretariat, Velagapudi Amaravati, Guntur District. The Director of Mines and Geology, Ibrahimpatnam, NTR District, A.P. Govt, of Andhra Pradesh, The District Level Sand Committee, East Godavari District, Rep.by its Chairman and Collector. The Joint Collector and Additional District Magistrate and In-charge for Overall sand Operations, East Godavari District, A.P. The District Mines and Geology Officer, Rajamahendravaram, East Godavari District Andhra Pradesh. 2. 3. 4. 5. ...Respondents Petition under order XLVIl of C.P.C., R/w Section 15 of Letter patent praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the -pleased to review the order dated 28.01.2025 in WA No 52 of 2025 and dismiss the Writ petition. WRIT APPEAL NO: 52 OF 2025 Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent preferred against the order dated 20-12-2024 in W.P. No.28781/2024 on the file of the High Court. lA NO: 2 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings including awarding of contract to any third party in respect of Sand Stock Point at Vemagiri- Kadiyapulanka/2022-1 East Godavari District, pending disposal of the above writ appeal. ^ lA NO: 6 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to interim direction be passed by this Court directing the respondents not to allow any third party to extract the sand from the Vemagiri/ Kadiyapu Lanka sand reach under the tender notifications No. 1646/SAN D/EXCAVATION/2024-25/02 dated 07-10-2024 during the pendency of this review application. / Counsel for the LA.No.3 of 2025 in Appellant: SRI K.SARVBHOUMA RAO Counsel for the Appellant: M/s YASWANTH GADE Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR MINES AND GEOLOGY The Court made the following judgment: "Hael^RCJ I.A.!Nb.3 of2025 in .W^.Wb.52 of2025 1 APHC010026582025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3483] Review lA No.3 of 2025 In WRIT APPEAL NO: 52/2025 Between: Vagdevi And Vishnavi Minerals ...APPELLANT AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others Counsel for the Appellant: 1.YASWANTH GADE Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1 .GP FOR MINES AND GEOLOGY ...RESPONDENT(S) CORAM: THE CHIEF JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI DATE : 11.03.2025 ORDER (Per Sri Justice Ravi Cheemalapati) This petition is filed under Order XLVII of Civil Procedure Code, read with Section 15 of Letters patent to review the order dated 28.01.2025 passed in Writ Appeal No.52 of 2025. JfCJ'd<RCJ I.JlMoJ of2025 in ‘.WA.iN'o.52 of2025 2. Through the orders dated 28.01.2025, this Court dismissed the writ appeal holding that in view of the proceedings issued by District Collector keeping the Joint collector as incharge for overall sand operations, the Joint Collector is competent to issue revocation of work order. The said orders now sought to be reviewed. are 3. The grounds of review, in nutshell, are that as per Rule 10-H of the Andhra Pradesh Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966, Director shall be the competent authority to cancel the agreement, as such Joint Collector, even if it is supposed that he is in charge of overall sand operations, is not competent to cancel the agreement. Further, it is the Assistant Director that had issued show cause notice and received explanation, therefore, the Joint Collector, who did not issue notice and did not hear the case, cannot decide the case. Moreover, mere issuance of letter of award or work order would not make the Joint Collector competent to revoke as observed by this Court. The grounds on which the work order was revoked are untenable, since the issue regarding dues to Mines Department is pending in revision before the Hon'ble Minister, Mines & geology and not possessing valid GST at the time of submission bid is not a ground to cancel the work order. However, this Court, failed to advert to these aspects and had they been considered in right perspective. of I.AMo.3 of2025 in ^^.^.1^0.52 of2025 3 this Court would have allowed the writ appeal. Accordingly, prayed to review the orders passed in writ appeal. 4. Heard Sri K.Sarvbhouma Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner. 5. The learned counsel reiterated the grounds of review and prayed to allow this review petition. 6. Rule 1 of Order 47 of CPC deals with the application for review. It states that - (1) Any person considering himself aggrieved— (a) by a decree or order from which an appeal is allowed, but from which no appeal has been preferred. (b) by a decree or order from which no appeal is allowed. (c) by a decision on a reference from a Court of Small Causes And who, from the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence was not within his knowledge or could not be produced by him at the time when the decree was passed or order made, or on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record or for any other sufficient reason, desires to obtain a review of the decree passed or order made against him, may apply for a review of judgment to the Court which passed the decree or made the order. (2) A party who is not appealing from a decree or order may apply for a review of judgment notwithstanding the pendency of an appeal by some other party except where the ground of such appeal is common to the applicant and the appellant, or when, being respondent, he can present to the Appellate Court the case on which he applied for the review. Explanation.—The fact that the decision on a question of law on which the judgment of the Court is based has been reversed or modified by the I.X^o.3 of2025 in ft.2J.9io.52 of2025 »v, subsequent decision of a superior Court in any other case, shall not be a ground for the review of such judgment. 6. The apex court in Meera Bhanja v. Nirmala Kumari Choudhury^ (1995) 1 see 170, held that review proceedings are not by way of an be strictly confined to the scope and ambit of Order 47, appeal and have to Rule 1 CPC. plain reading of the grounds of revision manifests that they are beyond the scope of review and are in the nature of an appeal. This Court, considering the proceedings of the District Collector whereby the Joint Collector was kept as incharge for overall sand operations, and further considering the fact that it is the joint Collector that had issued work order in favour of the petitioner, dismissed the writ appeal, negating the contentions 7. A upon raised by the petitioner questioning the competence of Joint Collector. The less reiterations of the contents of the writ grounds of review are more or the submissions made during the course of hearing in the affidavit and also writ appeal. There is neither error apparent on the face of the record nor any sufficient reason that desires to review of the order. Since this Court had dismissed the Writ Appeal negating the self same contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, this review is not maintainable and the same deserves dismissal. J.^.WoJ of2025 in M.2A.iN'o.52 of2025 5 8. Accordingly, the Review Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- SHAIK MOHAMMED RAFI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR N OFFICER //TRUE COPY// To, 1 One CC to Sri Yaswanth Gade, Advocate [OPUC] 2. One CC to Sri K. Sarvbhouma Rao, Advocate [OPUC] 3. Two CCs to GP for Mines & Geology, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] 4. Two CD Copies RAM ..y- HIGH COURT DATED:11/03/2025 REVIEW ORDER IA.No.3 of 2025 I H MAR 2025 | Curronl Section . ^ IN WA.No.52 of 2025 DISMISSED THE IA.No.3 of 2025 IN WA.No.52 of 2025 WITHOUT COSTS