IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA WRIT PETITION NO : 20227 of 2007 Between: Fisherman Co-operative Society, rep by its President Bashaboina Bhaskar Rao S/o.Janakiramulu, R/o Yerravaram Village, Kodad Mandal, Nalgonda District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Government of Andhra Pradesh rep by its Principal Secretary, Panchayathi Raj Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The District Collector, Nalgonda, Nalgonda District. 3 The District Panchayath Officer, Nalgonda, Nalgonda district. 4 The Divisional Panchayat Officer, Miryalaguda, Nalgonda District 5 Fisheries Development Officer, Nalgonda, Nalgonda district. 6 Ganapavaram Gram Panchayath rep. by its Sarpanch/ Panchayath Secretary Ganapavaram Village, Kodad Mandal, Nalgonda District. 7 Gaddam Rami Reddy S/o Seetaram Reddy, R/o.Ganapavaram Village, Kodad Mandal, Nalgonda District .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to declare the action of the 6threspondent conducting the auction on 16-7-2007 of the Ganapavaram Uracheruvu (Minor Irrigation tank) despite the orders passed by the 3rd respondent to stop the auction as illegal, arbitrary and against the principles of established judicial principles and natural justice and consequently direct the 6th respondent to grant lease of the Ganapavaram Uracheruvu at the upset price fixed by the fisheries department and approved by the 2nd respondent or direct the 2nd respondent to constitute a committee to fix the upset price for the lease of Ganapavaram Uracheruvu (Minor Irrigation tank) and to direct the 6th respondent to grant preference to the petitioner society in terms of G.O.Ms.No. 343 (Panchayati Raj ) dated 10-04-1979 and lease the Ganpavaram Uracheruvu (Minor Irrigation Tank). Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.D.V.CHALAPATHI RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ & RURAL DEV. The Court made the following : Form-NIC-OGS/WP{TRT} O R D E R:- This writ petition is filed seeking a mandamus to declare the action of the 6th respondent-Gram Panchayat in conducting auction of Ganapavaram Uracheruvu (Minor Irrigation Tank) on 17.7.2007 in spite of the order passed by the 3rd respondent indicating to stop the auction, as arbitrary and illegal, and consequently direct the 6th respondent to give preferential treatment to the petitioner-society in granting lease of the Tank, in terms of G.O.Ms.No.343 (Panchayat Raj), dated 10.4.1978 at the upset price fixed by the Fisheries Department and approved by the 2nd respondent or direct the 2nd respondent to constitute a committee to fix the upset price for the lease of the Tank. The petitioner-society, which consists of 171 members belonging to Yerravaram, Ganapavaram and Thogarrai villages of Kodad Mandal, Nalgonda District, has been carrying on fishing operations since 1981 and is the only Fisherman Cooperative Society in the Ganapavaram village and regularly paying lease amount to the 6th respondent-Gram Panchayat, and by virtue of G.O.Ms.No.343, dated 10.4.1978, the petitioner-society is given preference in granting lease of fishing rights over the Tank. While so, for the year 2006-2007, the 2nd respondent- District Collector failed to constitute a committee under the chairmanship of the 4th respondent-Divisional Panchayat Officer and other members as per G.O.Ms.No.499, dated 25.11.1998, for fixation of upset prices for grant of lease. Subsequently, the 3rd respondent-District Panchayat Officer passed an order, dated 16.7.2007, postponing the auction of leasehold rights of Ganapavaram Uracheruvu (Tank), for a period of week days. Now, the petitioner’s grievance is that the 6th respondent-Gram Panchayat, for the year 2007-2008, without fixing the upset price nor issuing notice to it with regard to auction of the Tank, conducted auction on 17.7.2007 contrary to the order of the 3rd respondent and G.O.Ms.No.343, dated 10.4.1978 and declared the 7th respondent as successful bidder. Sri D.V.Chalapathi Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, has contended that wherever there is a Fisherman Cooperative Society, such Society shall be given preference over others in all respects, but in the case on hand, the 6th respondent-Gram Panchayat, without giving preference to the petitioner-society, auctioned the leasehold rights of the Tank in question. His other contention is that though the 3rd respondent, by his order dated 16.7.2007, ordered to stop the proposed illegal auction, the 6th respondent, in defiance of the order, auctioned the leasehold rights on 17.7.2007 in favour of the 7th respondent. In support of his contention the learned counsel has drawn my attention to a judgment of this Court in W.P.No.8439 of 1985 wherein it is held to the following extent: “Here, the acute area of consideration is with regard to the power of the Gram Panchayat to fix the upset price and to hold public auction. As seen earlier, the object of giving leasehold right to catch the fish in the tank vested in the Gram Panchayat to the Fishermen Cooperative Society is to augment the limited resources of fisherman to ameliorate their economic position to achieve the constitutional goal set out in Article 46 of the Constitution.” Of course, the learned Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj, has produced a letter dated 14.7.2007 alleged to have been addressed by the petitioner-society to the effect that the Society is not willing to take leasehold rights as the upset price fixed is abnormal. No doubt, it is true as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that if the Fishing Cooperative Society is in existence, it alone shall be given preference of the leasehold fishing rights over the Tank in terms of G.O.Ms.No.343 dated 10.4.1970, but in case, it does not come forward and expresses its willingness to the authorities to take the leasehold rights, then it cannot be said that the Gram Panchayat is at fault. Maybe, it is true that the upset price fixed is arbitrary, excessive and is contrary to G.O.Ms.No.343, but inasmuch as the auction was conducted on 17.7.2007, the 7th respondent has been catching fish for more than nine months and the lease is coming to an end in another three months, I do not want to disturb the 7th respondent’s leasehold rights at this juncture. However, immediately after expiry of the lease granted in favour of the 7th respondent, the 6th respondent-Gram Panchayat may fix the upset price in terms of G.O.Ms.No.343 and offer the same initially to the petitioner-society, and in any case, if it does not come forward to communicate its acceptance, then it is open for the 6th respondent to put the leasehold rights of the fishing to public auction. In terms of the above observation, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs. __________________________ GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA, J 2nd May, 2008 bcj