HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION Nos.26216, 26220 and 26728 of 2011 Date: 23.09.2011 WRIT PETITION No.26216 of 2011 Between: Sagi Venkata Satyanarayana Raju ..... Petitioner AND: Deputy Director of Fisheries, Machilipatnam, Krishna District And three others. .....Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri V.V.Prabhakara Rao Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 & 2: AGP for Fisheries Counsel for Respondent Nos.3 & 4: AGP for Revenue WRIT PETITION No.26220 of 2011 Between: Sagi Varalakshmi ..... Petitioner AND: Deputy Director of Fisheries, Machilipatnam, Krishna District And three others. .....Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri V.V.Prabhakara Rao Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 & 2: AGP for Fisheries Counsel for Respondent Nos.3 & 4: AGP for Revenue AND WRIT PETITION No.26728 of 2011 Between: Bupathiraju Subhadramma ..... Petitioner AND: Deputy Director of Fisheries, Machilipatnam, Krishna District And three others. .....Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri V.V.Prabhakara Rao Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 & 2: AGP for Fisheries Counsel for Respondent Nos.3 & 4: AGP for Revenue The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER: Since these Writ Petitions raised common issues, they are heard and being disposed of together. The petitioners have earlier filed Writ Petition No.17149 of 2010 on the plea that even though they filed applications for grant of permission to carry on aquaculture by digging fish tanks before the competent authority, they were not disposed of and that, in terms of G.O.Ms.No.18, dated 26.03.2008, they have deemed permission. This Court by interim orders granted in Writ Petition Nos.14808, 17149 and 14276 of 2010, directed the respondents not to interfere with the petitioners’ fishing activities pending their applications for grant of permission. Subsequently, two persons by names Bathula Phani Shanker and Bathula Ravi Krishna filed Writ Petition No.21257 of 2011 in this Court with the allegation that the petitioners herein played fraud by enclosing one Demand Draft to three different applications and that, therefore, the applications themselves were invalid and as such, the petitioners herein not entitled to deemed permission under G.O.Ms.No.18. This Court while admitting Writ Petition No.21257 of 2011, granted interim direction on 28.07.2011 in W.P.M.P.No.25883 of 2011 to demolish the fish ponds illegally dug by the petitioners herein, who are respondent Nos.9 to 11 therein. Subsequently, the said interim order was carried out by the official respondents by removing the ponds. The petitioners filed the present Writ Petitions questioning the said action and this Court prima facie opined that the conduct of the petitioners in securing interim orders from this Court without disclosing the correct facts was questionable. Therefore, Sri V.V.Prabhakara Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners, sought for adjournment of Writ Petition No.26216 of 2011 to get instructions from his clients. Today, the learned counsel fairly conceded that his clients may be given liberty to file fresh applications in accordance with G.O.Ms.No.24, dated 09.04.2010 and G.O.Ms.No.67, dated 12.09.2011 and the Writ Petitions may be disposed of without going into the merits of the case. Having regard to the above submission of the learned counsel, the Writ Petitions are disposed of without going into the merits of the case with liberty to the petitioners to make fresh applications for permission to carry on aquaculture. It is made clear that if such applications are filed by the petitioners, they shall be considered and disposed of strictly in accordance with law, without being influenced by the previous conduct of the petitioners and the orders passed by this Court. As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Petitions, W.P.M.P.Nos.32365, 32371 and 32998 of 2011 filed by the petitioners for interim reliefs are dismissed as infructuous. ______________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 23rd September 2011 DR