IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION NO : 10330 of 2005 Between: Gouri Shankar Rajaka Sangam,(Society No.244/05) Sundarpalli Village,Pamarru Mandal, East Godavari Dist. rep by its president Sri Kondayapalepu Subba Rao, S/o. Chinnayya r/o Sundarapalli village, Pamarru Mandal, East Godavari Dist. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The District Collector Kakinada, East Godavari Dist. 2 The Mandal Revenue Officer. Kotipalli Gangavaram, Pamarru Mandal, East Godavari Dist. 3 The Mandal Revenue Inspector, MANSAS, Kotipalli village, Pamarru Mandal, East Godavari Dist. .....RESPONDENTS 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 to issue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the order dt.7.3.2005 of the 2nd respondents as illegal, arbitrary, baseless and consequently direct the respondents not to disturb the peaceful possession and enjoyment of washerman tank (Chakali Cheruvu) in Sy.No.306 of Kotipalli Village, Pamarru Mandal, East Godavari Dist, and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner: MRNVIJAY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: ORAL ORDER: The writ petitioner -- a Washerman Sangham of Sundarapalli village, Pamarru mandal, East Godavari district, challenges the order bearing reference No. (c) 308/2004 dated 07-03-2004 of the third respondent addressed to Kondayapalepu Subba Rao and others of Sundarapalli, a Xerox copy of which is appended to this writ petition. After considerable effort neither the learned counsel for the petitioner nor the Government Pleader appearing for respondent No. 1 nor Sri M. Adinarayana Raju learned counsel appearing for the third respondent have been able to make any sense of the order. The Court is in a similar predicament unable to comprehend the content and meaning of the order. In the circumstances, on the ground of vagueness the impugned order is quashed. It is however open to the appropriate authority to pass a fresh order in conformity with known law and established principles of grammar. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J Dated: 22-04-2008 Pvks/*