THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI Writ Petition No. 16686 of 2003 Dated: 30.09.2010 Between: Fishermen Co-operative Society, Kannala, Karimnagar District. … Petitioner And The Commissioner of Fisheries, Hyderabad and 2 others. … Respondents THE HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION No. 16686 of 2003 O R D E R : The petitioner herein is a Fishermen Society, registered under the provisions of A.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1964 (for short ‘the Act’). On behalf of the petitioner-society a representation was made on 08.11.2000 to the 2nd respondent-Assistant Director of Fisheries, who is functional registrar as per the powers delegated under the Act, requesting for registration of the society with the area of operation of Akkepalli, Kannala Voora Cheruvu and Puttapaka Brahmana Cheruvu. It is stated that the said application was made after complying with all the statutory formalities and enclosing the by- laws of the society. Aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the 2nd respondent in considering the representation of the petitioner-society, the present writ petition has been filed. This Court, while issuing rule nisi by order dated 23.09.2003, directed the 2nd respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within a period of four weeks. Pursuant thereto, though the 2nd respondent passed orders for registration of the petitioner-society, only two villages namely, Akkepalli village and Kannala village were included in the area of operation. It is stated in the counter affidavit filed by the 2nd respondent that a representation was received from the villagers of Puttapaka village requesting for registration of a separate society in the Puttapaka village and therefore, the request of the petitioner-society to include Puttapaka in the area of the operation of their society has not been considered. In the reply affidavit filed on behalf of the society it is contended that even assuming that a request was made by the villagers of Puttapaka for registration of a separate society in their village, since no such society is registered so far, the 2nd respondent ought to have included Puttapaka Brahmana cheruvu within the operation of the petitioner-society. Having heard the learned counsel for both parties and taking note of the facts and circumstances of the case, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition with a direction to the 2nd respondent to consider the request of the petitioner-society for inclusion of Puttapaka Brahmana Chervuu, Puttapaka village also within the area of operation of the petitioner-society after hearing all the parties concerned and after making due enquiry as provided under law and pass appropriate orders as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of this order. No costs. ​ ______________ G. ROHINI, J Date: 30.09.2010 KLP