IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT HON'BLE SRI ANIL R. DAVE, THE CHIEF JUSTICE and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT APPEAL NO : 502 of 2008 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 23/04/2008 in WP NO : 27806 OF 2007 on the file of the High Court.) Between: P.Srinivasa Reddy, S/o Mallareddy, R/o B-Turkapally H.O., Suraram Village, Ramannapet Mandal, Nalgonda District. ..... APPELLANT AND 1 The District Panchayat Officer, Nalgonda District at Nalgonda. 2 Divisional Panchayat officer, Bhongir, Nalgonda District. 3 Gram Panchayat, Suraram Village, Suraram Village, Ramannapet Mandal, Nalgonda District. 4 Assistant Director of Fisheries, Nalgonda. 5 Station House Officer, Ramannapet Police Station, Ramannapet, Nalgonda District. 6 Rajeeva Rythu Sangham, Suraram Village, Ramannapet Mandal, Nalgonda District represented by its Member Pesaru Narsi Reddy, S/o Narayana Reddy, Suraram Village, Ramannapet Mandal, Nalgonda District. 7 The District Collector, Nalgonda. 8 The Executive Engineer, I & CAD., Nalgonda. Respondents 7 and 8 are impleaded suo moto as per the Hon'ble Court order dt. 21.2.2008. .....RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Appellant:MR.D.GOVERDHANACHARY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ & RURAL DEV. The Court made the following : JUDGMENT: (Per Anil R. Dave, CJ) Being aggrieved by the order dated 23-4-2008 passed in W.V.M.P.No. 77 of 2008 in W.P.M.P.No.36369 of 2007 in W.P.No.27806 of 2007, this appeal has been filed. The short question which is involved in the petition is whether the Gram Panchayat i.e., respondent No.3 or the Assistant Director of Fisheries is entitled to auction the pond situated at Suraram Village. The case of the petitioner is that respondent No.3-Gram Panchayat had conducted auction of the pond for the purpose of giving right for fishing and upon payment of Rs.7,10,000/-, the highest amount of fee, petitioner No.1 has been given fishing right, whereas respondent No.6 claims fishing rights, as respondent No.4 is entitled to lease the pond for the purpose of fishing and respondent No.4 has given the said right to respondent No.6. There is a consensus among the Advocates that the fishing activities may be done by respondent No.4 in the presence of respondent No.3-Gram Panchayat. Subject to the aforestated condition, the order passed by the learned single Judge is confirmed. It is directed that at the time when respondent No.4 is doing fishing operation and auctioning the fish, either respondent No.3 or his representative shall remain present. It would be open to the concerned Advocates to approach the learned single Judge to get the petition fixed for final hearing at an early date. The writ appeal is disposed of subject to the above directions, with no order as to costs. ______________________ ANIL R. DAVE, CJ ________________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 2nd May, 2008 GRR To 1. 2.2 CD copies