THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 21984 of 2007 O R D E R: The petitioner is a Fishermen Cooperative Society, having area of operation over two villages, viz; Bollepalli and Surepalli. Serious eﬀorts were being made by the members, who are residents of Surepalli village, to get the petitioner society bifurcated. One of the members ﬁled W.P.No.14442 of 2007, complaining that his representation for formation of a society separately for Surepalli village, was not being considered. The writ petition was disposed of on 6.7.2007, directing the Commissioner of Fisheries, Deputy Director of Fisheries and Assistant Director of Fisheries, Nalgonda, to consider the representation. Acting on the same, the Deputy Director of Fisheries, the 2nd respondent herein, addressed letter dated 23.7.2007, to the petitioner society, directing the petitioner to explain within 15 days, as to why the village Surepalli be not deleted from the area of operation of the petitioner. It is stated that meeting of the general body of the society was convened, to discuss the issue, and it was unanimously resolved not to accept for deletion of Surepalli village from the area of operation. A representation dated 16.8.2007, together with the copy of the resolution, was forwarded to the 2nd respondent. The petitioner states that even while the matter is under consideration of the 2nd respondent, the Assistant Director, the 3rd respondent herein, issued notice dated 12.9.2007, to the eﬀect that in case, the society does not accept for deletion of Surepalli village from the area of operation, necessary steps would be taken under the A.P. Cooperative Societies Act. The petitioner feels aggrieved by this notice. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Fisheries. Acting on the directions issued by this court in W.P.No.14442 of 2007, the 2 nd respondent issued a notice dated 23.7.2007, requiring the petitioner to submit explanation. Accordingly, the general body of the society was conducted and resolution was passed, opposing the proposal. The same was forwarded to the 2nd respondent. The matter has to be resolved at that level. When the matter, in relation to deletion of a village from the area of operation of the petitioner society, is under consideration by a superior authority, it was not at all competent for the 3rd respondent, to exercise jurisdiction in relation to the same matter. If parallel proceedings are to take place, in the hands of diﬀerent authorities of the same department, there is every likelihood of inconsistent decision being rendered. Further, even if the 3rd respondent alone is competent in the matter, he ought to have sought necessary directions from the 2nd respondent, in view of the fact that steps were taken by him, on the basis of the directions issued by this court. Therefore, the writ petition is allowed, and the impugned notice dated 12.9.2007, is set aside. It is directed that further action, in pursuance of the directions issued by this court in W.P.No.14442 of 2007 shall be taken by the 2nd respondent, keeping in view the notice dated 23.7.2007, issued by him, and the explanation dated 16.8.2007 submitted by the petitioner. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J Dt: 4th November 2008 PAN