IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.30391 of 2010 Between: Sri Baidevathamma Fishermen Cooperative Society Ltd., Venkatapuram Chittoor District. ..... Petitioner AND The District Collector, Chittoor District Chittoor & others. .....Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri G. Vijaya Babu Counsel for the respondents: GP for Fisheries The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.30391 of 2010 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed for the following substantive relief: “… Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not considering and passing appropriate orders on the representation given by the petitioners society dated 27.08.2010 by taking into consideration of G.O.Rt.No.465 dated 24.09.2009, G.O.Rt.No.329 dated 30.06.2008, G.O.Ms.No. 776, dated 31.12.1990 and Memo No.9181/C2/99-1, dated 24.06.1999 issued by the Government as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the guidelines issued in the abovementioned G.Os. and also violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the 1st respondent to grant leasehold rights of fishery wealth in Thondamanadu tank which is in the area of operation of petitioners society for the Faslis 1420 to 1423 (01.07.2010 to 30.06.2014) by fixing lease as per the abovementioned G.Os. and as per Memo No.9181/C2/99-1, dated 24.06.1999 issued by the Government.” On 10.12.2010, this Court, while ordering notice before admission, directed respondent Nos.1 and 3 to consider the petitioner’s representation dated 27.08.2010 for grant of leasehold rights for exploiting fish for the year commencing from 01.07.2010. At the hearing, the learned Government Pleader for Fisheries stated that the said representation was considered and rejected. It has come out, at the hearing, that the said rejection order has been questioned by the petitioner in Writ Petition No.996 of 2011. With the rejection of the petitioner’s representation for grant of leasehold rights, its very entitlement for fishing rights was denied. In the present Writ Petition, the petitioner sought for a direction to the respondents to grant leasehold rights for five faslis in terms of G.O.Rt.No.465 dated 24.09.2009 and G.O.Rt.No.329 dated 30.06.2008 in G.O.Ms.No.776, dated 31.12.1990. When the very issue of the petitioner’s entitlement for fishing rights even for one fasli is the subject matter of Writ Petition No.996 of 2011, unless the petitioner succeeds in that Writ Petition, it cannot insist on granting of fishing rights for more than one fasli in terms of the above G.Os. In this view of the matter, no relief can be granted in this Writ Petition at this stage. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed without prejudice to the petitioner’s right to pursue Writ Petition No.996 of 2011. As a sequel to dismissal of the Writ Petition, WPMP.No.38709 of 2010 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is also dismissed. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 15.02.2011 ES