IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S.NARAYANA W.P.NO.510 OF 2010. Date:22.01.2010 Between:- Bhamidipati Veerabhadra Rao and others ..Petitioners And The District Collector, East Godavari District and others. .. Respondents ORDER:- The matter came up for admission on 20.01.2010. 2. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Irrigation, having taken notice, requests time to get instructions. It is stated by him that these agricultural lands would not fall within the notified area. 3. However, Sri C.V.R.Rudra Prasad had pointed out to the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition and also the material papers, which had been placed before this Court and would maintain that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the request made by the petitioners to be considered by respondent No.1. 4. Heard the counsel. 5. The writ petition is filed seeking a writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not releasing water for rabi crop to petitioners’ lands situated in Kajuluru, Sheela Lanka and Ontithadi villages, Kajuluru Mandal, East Godavari District under Pipe Nos.8 to 25 of Sheela Branch Canal, adjacent to Korangi Main Canal in Kajuluru Mandal, as arbitrary, illegal, unjust, violative of principles of natural justice, colourable exercise of power, discriminatory, violative of the Fundamental Rights guaranteed to the petitioners under Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to release water for rabi crop to their lands and pass such other suitable order. 6. It is stated that the petitioners and other villagers made representation to respondent No.1 requesting him to release water for rabi season to their lands. The particulars relating to these agricultural lands had been furnished. It is stated that on 29.11.2009, the officials from the office of respondent No.3 informed the petitioners and other villagers that there cannot be any second crop in their area. 7. Several facts had been narrated in the affidavit in detail. This Court is not inclined to express any opinion touching the merits and demerits. However, inasmuch as it is stated that a representation had been made to respondent No.1 requesting him to consider the same, this Court is of the considered opinion that the writ petition be disposed of directing respondent Nos.1 and 2 to consider the request of the petitioners for release of water for rabi crop to their lands that is the subject matter of the writ petition, in accordance with law, within a period of two (2) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 8. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs. _​_____________ P.S.NARAYANA, J 22nd January, 2010 Note:- Issue operative portion by wire at party’s costs. B/O. AMD