IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B. SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.10582 of 2010 Between: Pothivada Adilakshmi ... PETITIONER a n d The District Collector, Vizianagaram and others … RESPONDENTS ORDER: This writ petition has been filed by Pothivada Adilakshmi seeking mandamus declaring the inaction of the respondents 1 to 3 on her representation dated 25-02-2010 as illegal and arbitrary. 2. The petitioner claim that she is resident of Chellavani Thota village, Rellivalasa Gram Panchayat of Poosapatirega mandal, Vizianagaram district. She got elected as MPTC II member of Rellivalasa. Government dug bore wells and fitted with hand pumps, so as to cater drinking water need of the villagers. While so, the 4th respondent dug two bore wells in Sy.No.31/52 of Sy.No.44/2 near the house of one Pathivada Padmanabham within a distance of 100 meters from the public water supply system. It is further averred in the writ affidavit that 5th respondent dug a bore well within a distance of 150 meters from the existing Government drinking water bore well and whereas the 6th respondent dug another bore well at Kommuru Appanna Thrashing Floor within a distance of 200 meters from the existing public water supply scheme. 3. According to the petitioner, because of the bore-wells dug by respondents 4 to 6 the public water supply system has been badly affected. Therefore, she submitted a representation dated 25-02-2010 to the respondents 1 to 3 to take immediate steps to close the bore-wells dug by respondents 4 to 6. There being no action on the representation, she approached this Court invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 5. Notice before admission came to be issued on 30-06-2010. Respondents 4 to 6 entered appearance through counsel. 6. When the writ petition came up for admission hearing, there is no representation on behalf of the respondents 4 to 6. 7. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 to 3. 8. The limited grievance of the petitioner is non-consideration of representation dated 25-02-2010 complaining the illegal and unauthorized bore wells sunk by the respondents 4 to 6. Such is the situation, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition directing the second respondent to consider the representation dated 25-02-2010 and pass appropriate action after putting on notice to the affected parties i.e., respondents 4 to 6. 9. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________________ B. SESHASAYANA REDDY, J August 23, 2010. PN THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B. SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.10582 of 2010 August 23, 2010