HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY W.P.No.14119 of 2002 Dated: 03-02-2011 Between: Taniki Naga Jaya Lakshmi & Another …Petitioners AND The District Collector, Eluru, West Godavari District & others. Respondents This Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY W.P.No.14119 of 2002 ORDER: None appears for the petitioners. No counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents so far. I have gone through the material available on record. According to the petitioners, they are the owners and possessors of the land to an extent of Ac.2.52 cents, situated in R.S.No.275/2, Mallavaram Village, Narasapuram Mandal, West Godavari District. A fresh water pond is in existence around the bund for the last several years and that there are coconut trees and the petitioners are watering the coconut trees through the borewell. While so, the second respondent instructed them to fill the pond with water otherwise he threatened that the bunds of the pond will be removed. When the petitioners enquired with the second respondent, they were informed that they are carrying on prawn culture in the said pond in violation of the Environment Protection Act and also against the guidelines of the Apex Court and they are polluting the atmosphere. But, so far, no show-cause notice has been issued. On enquiry, the petitioners came to know that they have to make an application to Aqua Culture Authority, Minister of Agriculture, Government of India. Immediately, the petitioners approached the District Level Committee at Eluru and on their advice, they submitted an application to Aqua Culture Authority, Minister of Agriculture, Government of India, through District Level Committee, for permission to carry on traditional and improved culture of aqua culture and the same is pending. Hence, the petitioners sought for issuance of a writ of mandamus declaring that the respondents have no jurisdiction or authority to direct the petitioners to fill up the pond with fresh water. No order as such has been passed against the petitioners for filing the present writ petition. The writ petition appears to have been filed only to prevent any proposed action to be taken by the respondents, which, in all fairness, cannot be entertained and it should be thrown out at the threshold. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs. ________________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J. FEBRUARY 03, 2011 Tsr.