IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO WRIT APPEAL NO : 1127 of 2008 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 11/08/2008 in WP NO : 3835 OF 2008 on the file of the High Court.) Between: M.Muralidhar Reddy, S/o. Mohan Reddy, R/o.Sadarshapur Village, Mothkur Mandal, Nalgonda District. ..... APPELLANT AND 1 The Project Director, District Water Management Agency, Nalgonda, Nalgonda District., 2 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Bhongir, Nalgonda District., 3 The Tahsildar, Mothkur Mandal, Nalgonda District., 4 M.Dhananjan Reddy, S/o.Mohan Reddy, R/o. Sadarshapur village, Mothkur Mandal,Nalgonda District., .....RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Appellant:MR.K.BUCHI BABU Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO W.A.No.1127 OF 2008 ORDER: (per the Hon’ble Sri Justice B. Prakash Rao) This Writ Appeal is coming up for admission and at the request of counsel for both the parties, the same is being taken up for final disposal. 2. The appellant herein is the writ petitioner who ﬁled this appeal inter alia seeking to assail the order rejecting the interim order. The appellant sought for interim suspension of the order impugned in the writ petition whereby the 1st respondent set aside the order of restoration of bore well. 3. Since the digging of bore well by the appellant herein was contrary to law, it resulted in adverse orders by the competent authority. These orders have been assailed in the main writ petition and pending the same, the appellant-petitioner sought for interim suspension. 4. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and also a perusal of the material on record, we are of the opinion that any such direction to the appellant herein, as interim measure, virtually amounts to allowing the very main prayer itself in the writ petition and normally, this Court, would not, in any way, venture to grant such interim direction unless and until the main writ petition is disposed of. Hence, we do not ﬁnd any merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed. Having regard to the urgency and, as stated, the loss being sustained by the appellant, the oﬃce is directed to list the writ petition on 3rd November, 2008 before the Court having the provision to hear the matter. No costs. ________________ B.PRAKASH RAO,J ________________ R.KANTHA RAO,J 19-09-2008 Stp ........REGISTRAR To 1. 2.2 CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WA {LS}