THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.4848 of 2011 Date:01.03.2011 Between: Ganta Chandra Sekhar ..... Petitioner AND State of Andhra Pradesh rep.by its Principal Secretary, Irrigation and Command Area Development Department, Secretariat, Saifabad, Hyderabad and others .....Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Nimmagadda Satyanarayana Counsel for Respondent Nos.4 & 5: GP for Panchayat Raj Counsel for Respondent No.6 : Sri Raju For Sri G.Elisha The Court made the following: ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to declare the inaction of respondent Nos.1 to 4 in disposing of the petitioner’s representation, dated 03.02.2011, with regard to fishing rights over and the management of Venkatadri Minor Irrigation Tank, as illegal and arbitrary. I have heard Sri Nimmagadda Satyanarayana, learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj representing respondent Nos.4 and 5 and Sri Raju, learned counsel, representing Sri G.Elisha, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.6. The petitioner is a resident of Thimmapuram Village, Dwarakatirumala Mandal, West Godavari District. He claims to be an ayacutdar of Venkatadri Tank situated in the said Village. He pleaded that the said tank is a minor irrigation tank coming under the administrative control of the Minor Irrigation Department. He has, however, alleged that respondent No.7 managed respondent No.3 and other minor irrigation department officials and ensured that they did not raise any objections when respondent No.6 exercise their control over the said tank and hold auction of fishing rights. It is the further case of the petitioner that in the auction held by respondent No.6 in October, 2010, respondent No.7 has emerged as highest bidder and was granted fishing rights for a period of three years i.e., for Faslis 1420 to 1422. He further alleged that respondent No.7 has been polluting the tank by using chemicals and causing danger to the animals and also affecting the crops, which are under irrigation of the tank. The further grievance of the petitioner is that though a detailed representation was made on 03.02.2011 to respondent No.4 to takeover the tank from respondent No.6 and handover the same to the Minor Irrigation Department, no action is taken by respondent No.4 on the said representation. From the averments of the petitioner, as noted above, it is evident that the petitioner is questioning the very jurisdiction of respondent No.6 to hold auction of the fishing rights over the tank in question. The question whether the said tank is a registered minor irrigation tank or the one which is vested in respondent No.6 needs to be decided with reference to relevant record. Respondent No.4 is, therefore, directed to consider the petitioner’s representation and take a decision thereon. If respondent No.4 comes to the prima facie opinion that respondent No.6 has no control over the tank in question, he can pass an appropriate order only after giving an opportunity of being heard to respondent Nos.6 and 7. Subject to the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.6008 of 2011 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 01st March, 2011 VGB