IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF JUNE, TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 4302 of 2009 Between: Vasa Raja Sekhar S/o.Koteswara Rao R/o.Koyyalagudem Koyyalagudem Mandal, West Godavari District ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Tahsildhar, Gopalapuram Mandal West Godavari District, at Gopalapuram 2 The Divisional Engineer (Operation), APEPDCL Nidadavole, West Godavari District 3 Edupuganti Satyanarayana S/o.Gangaraju R/o.Jaganadhapuram, Gopalapuram Mandal, West Godavari District .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.K.JYOTHI PRASAD Counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2: MR.O.MANOHER REDDY Counsel for respondent No.3 : GHANTA RAMA RAO The Court made the following : ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed for a writ of Mandamus to declare the action of respondent Nos.1 and 2, in allowing respondent No.3 to draw water from the borewell dug by respondent No.3 in Survey No.45 of Karicherlagudem Village, Gopalapuram Mandal, West Godavari District, and sanctioning electrical service connection without considering the petitioner’s representation dated 12-02- 2009, as illegal and contrary to the provisions of the A.P.Water, Land and Trees Act, 2002 (for short ‘the WALTA Act’). Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.2 and Sri Ghanta Rama Rao, the learned Counsel for respondent No.3. The grievance of the petitioner is that respondent No.3, who is the owner of the land situated adjacent to the petitioner’s land, has illegally dug a borewell in violation of the provisions of the WALTA Act and applied to respondent No.2 for release of electric connection. He pleaded that on coming to know about respondent No.3’s effort to get the electrical service connection released, he sent separate representations to respondent Nos.2 and 3 on 12-02-2009 wherein he complained of the illegal act committed by respondent No.3 in digging the borewell in close proximity to the petitioner’s existing borewell in violation of the provisions of the WALTA Act. The petitioner further pleaded that despite the said representations, no action is taken by either of the two respondents and he apprehends that respondent No.2 is likely to release power supply to respondent No.3’s borewell. Inasmuch as the petitioner’s representation is pending before respondent No.1, who is the competent authority to take appropriate action if it is found that respondent No.3 has dug a borewell contrary to the provisions of the WALTA Act, it is just and appropriate to dispose of the Writ Petition with a direction to respondent No.1 to consider the representation of the petitioner and pass an appropriate order in the light of the provisions of the WALTA Act. Before passing the order, respondent No.1 shall give notices to the petitioner and respondent No.3 and after hearing them, if he is satisfied that respondent No.3 has dug the borewell in violation of the provisions of the WALTA Act, he shall take appropriate action thereon. If, on the other hand, he finds that the provisions of the said Act are not violated, he shall not interfere with the right of respondent No.3 to use the borewell. In either case, respondent No.1 shall pass a detailed order and communicate the same to the petitioner and respondent No.3 within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The Writ Petition is, accordingly, disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Petition, WPMP.No.5644 of 2009 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. __________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 1st June, 2009 AMD/LUR