THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY Writ Petition No.21504 of 2011 Dated 24th August, 2011 Between: Fishermen Cooperative Society …Petitioner And A.P.State Fishermen Cooperative Societies Federation Ltd., Hyderabad Mastya Bhavan, Shanthinagar, Road No.4, Masab Tank, Hyderabad, rep.by its Commissioner and another …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri Mahadeva Kanthrigala Counsel for respondent Nos.1 & 4: AGP for Fisheries Counsel for respondent Nos.2 & 3: AGP for Fisheries The Court made the following: ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in not acting on the petitioner’s representations, dated 28.03.2011 and 01.04.2011, as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner has taken certain lands on lease and started shrimp culture. Respondent No.5, who owns lands adjacent to the said land of the petitioner, raised objections for the petitioner carrying the activity of shrimp culture. The petitioner moved respondent Nos.2 and 3 for permission for carrying on the said activity. The petitioner pleaded that vide his letter, dated 29.04.2011, respondent No.2 has directed the Tahsildar, Kavali to submit a report for further action. In support of this plea, the petitioner filed a copy of the said letter. The grievance of the petitioner is that no action has been taken thereafter by respondent No.2. The learned Assistant Government Pleader, on instructions, submitted that the Tahsildar, Kavali has submitted his report to respondent No.3 before whom the petitioner submitted its application. He further stated that it is the District Level Committee headed by respondent No.2, which is competent to consider the petitioner’s application for recommendations to be made to the State Level Committee and that the petitioner’s application remained with respondent No.3, who has no role to play in the matter of considering the application for grant of permission for carrying on shrimp culture. From the material on record, it is evident that on the petitioner’s application, respondent No.2 has called for a report from the Tahsildar, Kavali. According to the petitioner, it has made applications before respondent No.2 and also respondent No.3. A perusal of the letter, dated 29.04.2011, would show that respondent No.2 has called for a report from the Tahsildar on the representations made by the petitioner to the Hon’ble Chief Minister, which were evidently forwarded to respondent No.2. It thus appears that as submitted by the learned Assistant Government Pleader, the petitioner’s application is with respondent No.3. As the said respondent is stated to have received report from the Tahsildar, Kavali, it is appropriate that he forwards the said application along with the report to respondent No.2, who in turn shall place the same before the District Level Committee and consider for being forwarded to the State Level Committee. If the petitioner is required to comply with any of the requirements needed for consideration of its application, respondent No.2, shall issue a notice to it for compliance of such requirements. Respondent No.3 shall place the petitioner’s application along with the Tahsildar’s report within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Within one month of receipt of such application, respondent No.2 shall issue notice to the petitioner and place its application before the District Level Committee for its disposal in accordance with G.O.Ms.24, dated 09.04.2010. Subject to the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.26169 of 2011 is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 24th August, 2011 VGB