IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA WRIT PETITION NO : 26821 of 2008 Between: Ashok Reddy Servicing Rep. by its Proprietor Kaki Prakash Reddy S/o.Appala AReddy, aged 52 yrs Business,. R/o. D.No. 16-135, (New N. 5-29-45/11) Kakireddy Metta, Autonagar, D-Block Visakhapatnam District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Government of A.P. Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration, Secretariat Building, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The Commissioner Greater Visakha Municipal Corporation Near R.T.C Complex Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue an appropriate writ order or direction more particularly a writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd Respondent herein in abruptly closing the pumping of the water seizing material and equipment used in connection with extraction of water from the Borewell in the petitioner's land in Sy.No. 55/1 & 55/2 of Thokada Village, Chinagantayada mandal, Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam District as arbitrary illegal, unjust and Violative of the fundamental rights, guaranteed to the petitoner under Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of Constitution of India and agaisnt the provisions of the A.P. Water, Land and Trees Act 2002 with a consequential direction to the Respondents to restore the pumping of water supply to the petitioner forthwith in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.SIVALENKA RAMACHANDRA PRASAD Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR MUNCIPAL ADMN. & URBAN DEV. The Court made the following : O R D E R:- This writ petition is filed seeking a mandamus to declare the action of the 2nd respondent-Commissioner in abruptly closing the pumping of the water, seizing material and equipment used in connection with extraction of water from the Bore-well in the petitioner’s land in R.S.Nos.55/1 & 55/2 situated in Thokada village, Chinagantyada Mandal, Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam District, as arbitrary and illegal and a consequential direction to the respondents to restore the pumping of water supply to the petitioner forthwith. The petitioner-Ashok Reddy Servicing, represented by its Proprietor, asserts that he dug a bore-well in a part of his land admeasuring Ac.40.00 cents in R.S.Nos.55/1 and 55/2 situated in Thokada village, Chinnagantyada Mandal, Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam District in the year 1987. As the water supplied by the Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation is hardly sufficient, at the instance of the villagers and also the neighbouring villagers, he started supplying water to them from his bore-well free of cost from the year 1995. While so, the Assistant Engineer and Divisional Engineer of Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation, without issuing any notice, highhandedly unearthed all the connecting pipes and took away two motors and the equipment used in connection with extraction of water and closed the bore-well. Then, the petitioner submitted a representation dated 3.12.2008 requesting the 2nd respondent to restore the bore-well and the material seized. Now, the petitioner’s grievance is that though he made the representation, the respondents have neither considered the representation nor restored the bore-well to its normal position. Heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material placed on record. The learned standing counsel for Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation has submitted that under the guise of supplying water to the villagers of Thokada and surrounding villagers, the petitioner is selling water to Visakhapatnam Dairy for commercial purpose and on account of that activity the Municipality is not in a position to supply water to the residents of Gajuwaka. According to Section 15 of the A.P. Water, Land & Trees Act, 2002 (for short “the Act”) which deals with closure of wells, it is always open for the authorities to see that such a well is closed, but according to the proviso of the said provision of law, before closing such a well, the authorities shall put the owner of that well on notice. In the instant case, inasmuch as no notice has been served on the petitioner before the 2nd respondent initiating the said action, this Court is inclined to dispose of the writ petition with the following directions: “The 2nd respondent-Commissioner is hereby directed to restore the petitioner’s bore-well to its original position forthwith, and thereafter, shall strictly adhere to Section 15 of the Act and pass appropriate orders on the petitioner’s representation dated 3.12.2008 in accordance with law”. With the above directions, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs. ______________ 15.12.2008 bcj