IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 9242 of 2002 Between: G. Vishnun Vardhan Reddy S/o. Kista Reddy R/o. Plot No. 42, Sai Gnga Nagar, Sankaswar Bazar, Saidabad, Hyderabad-59. ..... PETITIONER AND The Commissioner, Land Administration (Appeals) Hyderabad-1 & others. .....RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.S.GANESH RAO Counsel for the Respondents:GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following Order: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 9242 of 2002 ORDER: This writ petition is ﬁled for a writ of mandamus to set aside the proceedings dated 25-04-2002 issued by respondent No.1, whereby he conﬁrmed the order dated 28- 03-2001 issued by respondent No.2 Respondent No.2, in his order, held that the petitioner is exploiting the borewell located in plot No.42, Opposite Ganga Theatre, Sankeshwar Bazar, Saidabad, for commercial purposes, detrimental to the underground water table. He, therefore, while exercising his powers under Section 6(1) and (2) of the A.P.Ground Water (Regulation for drinking water purposes) Act, 1996 (for short ‘1996 Act’), ordered for closure of the borewell from 28-03-2001 till 30-06-2001. At the hearing, Sri S.Ganesh Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that though the period for which the direction to close the borewell expired, there is a likelihood of issuing similar directions in future. He further submitted that 1996 Act was repealed and replaced by the A.P. Water, Land and Tress Act, 2002, that Section 8(2) prescribes that the owners of all the wells including those which are not ﬁtted with power driven pumps and water bodies in the State, shall register their wells/water bodies with the authorities and that operation of the wells/water bodies are regulated by the said Act. He, therefore, submitted that in view of change in legislation, the petitioner may be permitted to approach the competent authority for registration and necessary permissions for using the borewell. In view of this submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the writ petition is disposed of, without going into the merits of the case, with liberty in terms of the prayer made. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, WPMP.No.11422 of 2002 and WVMP.No.1351 of 2002 are disposed of as infructuous. __________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J Date:16-10-2008 usd