THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.14402 of 2011 ORDER: Heard Sri Y. Koteswar Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Government Pleader for Revenue (Andhra Area) and learned Government Pleader for Fisheries and with their consent, the writ petition is being disposed of at the stage of admission. The relief sought for in this writ petition is to declare the action of the respondents herein in interfering with the repair works of prawn/fish tanks and with their activity of pisci culture in prawn/fish tanks situated in their lands of Singanapudi Village, Mandavalli Mandal, Krishna District as arbitrary and contrary to G.O.Ms.No.18, dated 26.03.2008 and G.O.Ms.No.24, dated 09.04.2010. Under G.O.Ms.No.24, dated 09.04.2010, a District Level Committee was constituted for regularizing the existing fresh water aquaculture units and to grant permissions for setting up new fresh water aquaculture units in the State. Clause VII of the said G.O. prescribes the guidelines for regularization of existing unregistered fresh water aquaculture units and to grant permissions for setting up of new fresh water aquaculture units in the State. Clause VII (10) of the said G.O. stipulates that all existing unregistered aqua units which have not applied for regularisation on or before 31.05.2010, would require permission of the District Collector to take action to close or demolish such units including taking penal action against the farmers, if his direction is violated. The validity of G.O.Ms.No.24 fell for consideration before a Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal No.550 of 2010 and batch and the Division Bench by order, dated 29.04.2011 issued the following directions: 1. Before any permission is granted for conversion of agricultural land into non-agricultural purposes, permission under Sec. 3 of the Conversion Act is must; 2. The landholder, who intends to convert his agricultural land into non-agricultural purpose ie., fish tanks, has to make an application before the Committee Constituted in G.O.Ms.No.47 dt.24-6-2010. The Committee which scrutinizes the applications necessarily can proceed with the same only on enclosing the conversion order obtained under the provisions of the Conversion Act along with the application and take steps. 3. At the time of granting permission for aquaculture, it is always open for the adjacent landholders to make their objections for converting the adjacent lands into fish tanks and their objections shall be taken into consideration before granting permission. 4. After conversion of agricultural land into fish tanks, if any complaint is received stating that it is causing pollution of underground water or adjacent land became saline, the said complaint has to be referred to the authority constituted under the Environment Act with the report from the Pollution Control Board for certification that it will not cause any environment pollution and in the event if it causes environmental pollutant, the Committee constituted under the Environment Act shall suggest remedial measures and only on complying with the remedial measures, the Committee shall certify accordingly. Basing upon the said certificate, the authority constituted under G.O.Ms.No.47 dt.24-6-2010, which accorded permission for setting up of fresh aquaculture has to take steps either for discontinuation of aquaculture activities or can withdraw the permission so granted to protect the environment as suggested by the Committee constituted under the Environment Act. 5. Wherever Committee granted permission without there being any permission obtained for conversion of agricultural land into non-agricultural purposes, the persons whose lands were permitted to convert for setting up of fish tanks should be directed to produce a certificate of conversion under the Conversion Act by fixing a time limit and on failure to submit such certificate, permission granted earlier should be withdrawn. Sri Y. Koteswar Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners would vehemently contend that inasmuch as the petitioners have already submitted their applications for regularization prior to 31.05.2010 and in the absence of any prohibition in G.O. enabling such existing fresh water aquaculture units to continue functioning, the action of the respondents in threatening to demolish the prawn/fish tanks of the petitioners is arbitrary and illegal. It is no doubt true that G.O.Ms.No.24 does not specifically prohibit existing units, who submitted their applications before 31.05.2010, to continue in operation. Various conditions stipulated therein including the guidelines in Clause VII, however, empower the Committee, in case the conditions stipulated in the said G.O. are not satisfied, to decline permissions, thereby, enabling the District Collector to take action for closure of such units. The petitioners admittedly claim to have submitted an application prior to 31.05.2010. It defies reason that the respondents should sleep over the matter for nearly a year without passing any orders thereupon, I consider it appropriate prima facie in such circumstances to permit the petitioners to carry out repair works of the fish tanks inasmuch as they claim that the units are in existence and to have submitted application before 31.05.2010. The respondents shall however act in accordance with the guidelines specified in G.O.Ms.No.24, dated 09.04.2010 and the order of the Division Bench referred to hereinabove and pass orders on the petitioners’ application, in accordance with law, within a period of three (3) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is made clear that the petitioners are permitted to proceed to repair the tanks in question. As admittedly, no pisi culture activity is being carried on, as on date, the petitioners shall await the orders to be passed by the Committee constituted in G.O.Ms.No.24 before taking any further action in the matter. The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. However, in the circumstances, without costs. RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J Dt:24.05.2011. Note:issue c.c. by tomorrow. Usd/md