IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI & THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL NO : 1597 of 2008 Between: Rajeev Rythu Sangam, Suraram Village, Ramannapet Mandal, Nalgonda District rep., by its Member Pesaru Narsi Reddy ..... APPELLANT AND 1 P. Srinivasa Reddy and others. .....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI & THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL NO :1597 of 2008 JUDGMENT: (per Hon’ble Smt. Justice T. Meena Kumari) Challenging the order dated 15.11.2008 passed by the learned single Judge in W.P.No.27806 of 2007, the present writ appeal has been preferred by the 6th respondent in the writ petition. The appellant-Sangham is the 6th respondent and respondents 1 and 2 herein are the petitioners and respondents 3 to 9 herein are respondents 1 to 5, 7 & 8 in the writ petition. For the sake of convenience the status of the parties will hereinafter be referred to as arrayed in the writ petition. Originally, the above writ petition was filed by the 1st respondent-writ petitioner and after his death his wife came on record as legal representative. The above writ petition was filed seeking to declare the action of the respondents in not enabling the writ petitioner to conduct the fishing operations in Uppali Cheruvu Tank of Suraram Village, Ramannapet Mandal, Nalgonda District, pursuant to the permission granted by the Suraram Grampanchayat to the petitioner on 30.11.2007, as illegal and arbitrary. It is the case of the writ petitioner that he was declared as successful bidder in an open auction conducted by the 3rd respondent- Grampanchayat for lease hold rights in respect of Uppali Cheruvu Tank of Suraram Village, Ramannapet Mandal, Nalgonda District and when he made arrangements for catching the fish, the 6th respondent- Sangham resisted on the ground that it was granted fishing rights by the Assistant Director of Fisheries, vide proceedings, dated 13.11.2007. Hence, the petitioner approached the authorities of the Panchayat Raj Department as well as the Station House Officer for protection of his rights in the tank in question, but of no avail. On the other hand, it is the case of the 6th respondent-Sangham that it comprises of persons, whose lands are affected on account of restoration of the tank to its optimum level and when the Government was not in a position to pay the compensation, it approached the District Collector with a request to permit its members to undertake fishing in the tank and accordingly, permission was accorded to it. The learned single Judge having observed that since there was no fishermen co-operative societies in the village, the Grampanchayat conducted the auction and the petitioner emerged as the highest bidder and was granted lease and that the 6th respondent-Sangham based its claim solely upon the proceedings dated 13.11.2007 issued by the 4th respondent and the said proceedings are without any basis, allowed the writ petition directing that the petitioner alone shall be entitled to catch the fish in terms of the lease executed in his favour by the Grampanchayat, duly ensuring the compliance with the terms and that the 6th respondent shall not be entitled to any right vis-à-vis the tank and that the Station House Officer, Ramannapet Police Station, the 5th respondent and the other authorities of the Panchayat Raj Department ensure that there is no interference from any other person in the fishing operations. Having aggrieved by the same, the present writ appeal has been preferred by the 6th respondent-Sangham. Heard the learned Counsel and perused the material available on record. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the appellant- Sangham that the lease period had already been expired and the writ petitioner has not complied with the conditions of the auction and has not deposited the entire auction amount, but the lease period has been extended till June, 2010, for the reasons best known to the Grampanchayat. It is pertinent to note that as per the terms of the lease, the petitioner is required to pay the entire bid amount of Rs.7,10,000/- in three instalments during the period from 15.11.2007 to 30.6.2008. Perusal of the material annexed to the application in WAMP No1162 of 2009 and the report submitted by the Divisional Panchayat Officer to the District Panchayat Officer, vide letter No.138/07, dated 19.6.2008, make it clear that the writ petitioner-bidder had paid earnest money of Rs.20,000/- by way of D.D and a cash of Rs.2,40,000/- towards first instalment and thus, in total, he deposited Rs.2,60,000/- out of the bid amount of Rs.7,10,000/-. Out of the said deposited amount, Rs.90,000/- was deposited by the Grampanchayat in its account and when the writ petitioner asked to return the amount deposited by him on the ground that one Bandelu Sailu filed a case in this Court in respect of the tank in question, the remaining amount of Rs.1,70,000/- was returned to the writ petitioner-bidder on 10.2.2008. There is no material on record that the petitioner has complied with the conditions of the lease. Further, no reasons are forthcoming from the Grampanchayat for alleged extension of lease in favour of the writ petitioner. Under the above circumstances, we have no hesitation to hold that the writ petitioner has no right whatsoever to conduct fishing operations in the tank in question and hence, the order of the learned single Judge is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the writ appeal is allowed setting aside the order the learned single Judge in W.P.No.27806 of 2007. No order as to costs. At this stage, the learned Government Pleader for Panchayatraj & Rural Development submitted that liberty may be granted to the Grampanchayat to conduct fresh auction for lease hold rights in respect of the tank in question. In view of the above submission, liberty is granted to the Grampanchayat as sought for. However, we make it clear that the auction money shall be deposited in any nationalized back. It is also made clear that the appellant-Sangham is at liberty to agitate its rights before the Grampanchayat concerned. _______________________ Justice T.Meena Kumari _____________________ Justice Sanjay Kumar Dated: 21st December, 2009 nn THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI & THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL NO :1597 of 2008 (Judgment of the Division Bench delivered by the Hon’ble Smt Justice T. Meena Kumari) 21st December , 2009