The Hon’ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy Writ Petition Nos.12311, 12260, 12300 & 12320 of 2010 Dated 2nd June, 2010 WP.No.12311 of 2010 Between: Atluri Lokesh …Petitioner And The Government of Andhra Pradesh and 3 others …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : Mr.K.Durga Prasad Counsel for the respondents: GP for Fisheries The Court made the following: Common Order: Since the issue raised in all these Writ Petitions is one and the same, all these Writ Petitions are taken up for hearing and disposed of together with the consent of learned Counsel for the parties. In all these Writ Petitions, the petitioners sought for a declaration by way of Mandamus that they hold deemed permission for carrying on fishing activities by converting their agricultural lands into fish tanks. I have heard Sri K.Durga Prasad, learned Counsel for the petitioners, and the learned Government Pleader for Fisheries representing the respondents. The learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that on 06-02-2010, the petitioners made separate applications seeking permission for conversion of their agricultural lands into fish tanks and that when those applications were made, G.O.Ms.No.83, AH, DD & Fisheries Department, dated 12-09-2007, was holding the field. According to the learned Counsel, under the said GO if the application for grant of permission is not disposed of within 60 days, there is a deemed permission. The learned Counsel further submitted that all the functionaries concerned have recommended to the District Level Committee for grant of permission and that despite the said recommendations, the Committee has not so far disposed of the petitioners’ applications. The learned Counsel further submitted that in view of the deemed provision, the petitioners are entitled to carry on the fishing activities by converting their agricultural lands into fishing tanks. Opposing these contentions, the learned Government Pleader for Fisheries submitted that respondent No.1 issued G.O.Ms.No.24, dated 09-04- 2010, in supersession of all earlier GOs including G.O.Ms.No.18, dated 26-03-2008. He further submitted that the deeming provision, which was contained in G.O.Ms.No.18 is not provided in G.O.Ms.No.24 and therefore, the petitioners cannot take the benefit of the said provision atleast from the time of advent of G.O.Ms.No.24, dated 09-04-2010. In my opinion on the facts of these cases, it is not necessary for this Court to give a finding as to whether the deeming provision, which was contained in G.O.Ms.No.18, comes to the aid of the petitioners because even according to the learned Counsel for the petitioners all the competent functionaries have made recommendation for grant of permission and the petitioners’ applications can be disposed of by the District Level Committee in a time bound manner in the light of those reports. The learned Government Pleader for Fisheries submitted that respondent No.4 cannot have any objection for an early disposal of the petitioners’ applications in accordance with law. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of these cases, the Writ Petitions are disposed of with the direction to respondent No.4 to dispose of the petitioners’ applications in terms of the relevant GOs and reports, if any submitted by the competent authorities, within a period of four weeks from today. The decision taken by respondent No.4 shall be communicated to the petitioners immediately thereafter. As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Petitions, WPMP.Nos.15531, 15467, 15516 & 15541 of 2010 filed by the petitioners for interim relief are disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dated 2nd June, 2010 Note: CC in three days. (B/o) lur