THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.10522 of 2010 Date:14.02.2011 Between: G.Chandra Shekar and others ..... Petitioners AND The District Collector, Khammam and others .....Respondents Counsel for the Petitioners: Ms. M.Vidyavathi Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 to 3: Assistant Government Pleader for Fisheries Counsel for Respondent No.4: Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue The Court made the following: ORDER: At the interlocutory stage, the writ petition is taken up for hearing and disposal with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The petitioners are owners of certain lands in various survey numbers of Jayapuram Village, Pedapadu Mandal, West Godavari District. They have converted these lands into fresh water aqua culture ponds. The District Level Committee, headed by the District Collector as Chairperson, considered the petitioners’ application for conversion and granted permission vide its proceedings dated 01.06.2009. Thereafter, respondent No.4 issued notices to the petitioners to stop construction work till further orders. The petitioners then filed W.P.No.11602 of 2009, which was allowed by this Court, by order dated 26.08.2009. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the respondents filed W.A.No.1360 of 2009. The said W.A. was disposed of by a Division Bench of this Court by order dated 15.12.2009 by directing respondent No.2 to consider the relevant reports including the report submitted by the technical committee and pass appropriate orders after hearing the petitioners within six weeks from the date of receipt of that order. It was further directed that the respondents should permit the petitioners to harvest the existing fish up to 31.05.2010 and that the petitioners are not entitled to leave fresh fish seed and harvest fish after 01.06.2010 unless respondent No.2 passes an order in their favour. Purporting to follow the said directions, respondent No.1 passed the impugned order dated 03.04.2010, whereby he has cancelled the licence issued in favour of the petitioners and prohibited the petitioners from digging up the tank bed area for carrying on fish culture activity. The petitioners pleaded in their affidavit and the learned counsel appearing for them has reiterated at the time of hearing that the impugned order passed by respondent No.1 is not only violative of the principles of natural justice but also unsustainable because the Division Bench of this Court directed respondent No.2 to consider the matter afresh and pass appropriate order, whereas instead of respondent No.2 passing the order, respondent No.1 issued the impugned order. As regards the first submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners, respondent No.2, along with counter-affidavit, filed a copy of letter dated 31.03.2010 addressed by the Assistant Fisheries Inspector, Khammam to the Assistant Director, Fisheries, wherein it is stated that the notice dated 22.03.2010 fixing 30.03.2010 as the date for hearing could be served on only one person, by name, G. Chandra Shekar, S/o Syamala Raju (petitioner No.1), that the other persons were not in the village, that therefore, notices could not be served on them and that even petitioner No.1 expressed his inability to attend hearing on 31.03.2010. In the impugned order, it is claimed that the petitioners were informed that they will be heard in person on 31.03.2010 and that they have not turned up to attend hearing before respondent No.1. It is not stated in the impugned order that the notices were served on the petitioners. In the face of the report of the Assistant Fisheries Inspector filed by respondent No.1 himself, it is evident that except petitioner No.1, the other petitioners were not served with notices for hearing. Even with regard to petitioner No.1, notice was served on him on the night of 30.03.2010, hardly leaving reasonable time to attend the hearing. Therefore, I find force in the plea of the petitioners that they were denied proper opportunity to put-forth their case before respondent No.1. As regards the second plea, namely, that the impugned order passed by respondent No.1 is without jurisdiction, admittedly the competent authority which granted permission to the petitioners is the District Level Committee i.e., respondent No.2 and respondent No.1 is only the Chairman of the Committee. The Division Bench, while disposing of W.A.No.1360 of 2009, has directed respondent No.2 (District Level Committee) to consider the relevant reports including the report submitted by the technical committee and pass appropriate orders after hearing the petitioners. The impugned order shows that respondent No.1 has passed the impugned order. As the competent authority has not passed the impugned order, the same cannot be sustained in law. For the aforementioned reasons, the impugned order dated 03.04.2010 is set aside. Respondent No.2 is directed to issue fresh notices to the petitioners and pass appropriate orders within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is, however, made clear that till fresh orders are passed, the petitioners shall not leave fresh seed in the tanks in question. It is needless to observe that if there is any fish available in the tank, the petitioners shall be free to harvest the same. The sale proceeds stated to have been deposited and lying with respondent No.1 in pursuance of the order dated 28.12.2010 passed by this Court shall be paid to the petitioners as the same belongs to them. With the above directions, the Writ Petition is allowed. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, interim orders dated 01.06.2010 and 28.12.2010 are vacated and W.P.M.P.Nos.13487 of 2010 and 33656 of 2010 are disposed of as infructuous. ________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 14th February, 2011 GHN