IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD 28.12.2011 PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU WRIT PETITION NO.26373 OF 2011 Between : Bondada Naga Venkata Soma Sundara Kishore Kumar. ...PETITIONER A N D State of Andhra Pradesh and others. …RESPONDENTS THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU WRIT PETITION NO.26373 OF 2011 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed seeking to declare the action of respondent No.3 in insisting the petitioner to stop aquaculture activity in his fish ponds to an extent of Ac-10.49 cents in R.S.Nos.93/1 and 93/2 of Narasimhapuram Village of West Godavari District, and issuance of urgent Notice, dated 24.08.2011, as illegal and arbitrary and consequently to direct respondent No.3 not to interfere with the petitioner aquaculture activity. 2. In the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition it is stated that the petitioner is the owner above said land. The petitioner along with some others made an application to the Superintending Engineer, Irrigation Circle, Dowleshwaram, for grant of permission for converting the agricultural lands into fish tanks and the said application was considered and permission was granted on 14.07.1993. After obtaining permission, the petitioner started aquaculture business. Thereafter, Government issued G.O.Ms.No.83, dated 12.09.2007, constituting a District Level Committee for regularizing the existing fresh water aquaculture and to accord permission for setting up new fresh water aquaculture units in the State. Subsequently the Government also issued amendments to G.O.Ms.No.18, dated 26.03.2008. The petitioner made an application to the District Level Committee for grant of permission for regularization. The Committee after considering the application, issued proceedings granting permission to him for aquaculture in respect of fish tanks in an extent of Ac.10.49 cents in survey No.92/1, 2, 3 and 93/1, 2 of Narasimhapuram, West Godavari District, for a period of five years i.e., from 10.07.2009 to 09.07.2014. The petitioner is doing fishing operations without contravening the conditions. The permission granted in favour of the petitioner is still in force. In the month of September, 2010, some political parties had given complaint to the Mandal Thasildar, Nidamarru, alleging that the existence of fish tanks in the area is causing damage to the agriculture lands. Basing on the complaint, the Thasildar orally instructed the petitioner through the Village Revenue Officer to stop his fishing activity. The petitioner filed W.P.No.21439 of 2010 before this Court and this Court disposed of the same holding that the permission granted in favour of the petitioner is in force and the Mandal Thasildar or Revenue Divisional Officer or respondent No.1 shall not interfere with the petitioner aquaculture activity but, however, giving liberty to the competent authority to hold enquiry and, if any, complaints received against the petitioner, pass appropriate orders by giving opportunity to the petitioner. During enquiry, some complaints were received from the Villagers. So far no orders have been passed and no enquiry was conducted with regard to the allegations made against him. Respondent No.3-Village Administrative Officer came to the petitioner fish tank and asked him to stop the fishing activity and thereafter, served urgent notice on him on 30.08.2011 stating that he should not undertake the fishing activity, alleging that there are objections received from the neighbours. Hence, the Writ Petition. 3. Respondent No.3 filed detailed counter affidavit denying the averments made in the writ affidavit and stated that as per the proceedings of respondent No.2, the petitioner has not arranged the seepage channel around fish tank, respondent No.3 instructed the petitioner to stop aquaculture activity. Thereafter, as per the objections raised by the neighbours, respondent No.3 issued a notice to the petitioner to stop the fishing activity in his field. Basing on the representations of the neighbours, respondent No.3 had inspected the premises of the petitioner and submitted a report to Deputy Director of Fisheries, Eluru, West Godavari District on 24.08.2010 and 22.08.2011. On 05.09.2011 the petitioner submitted explanation stating that he will arrange seepage channel around the fish tank and renovate his fish tank as per guidelines. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that when the respondents are interfering with the aquaculture activity of the petitioner, he filed W.P.No.21439 of 2010 before this Court and this Court directed respondent No.1 not to interfere with the same, but however, if any complaints are received, the respondents are entitled to hold an enquiry and shall also give an opportunity to the petitioner before passing any order adverse to the interest of the petitioner; that without passing any orders, the respondents are trying to interfere with the possession of the petitioner. 5. On the other hand, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Fisheries contended that at the time of making application for permission, the petitioner undertook to construct a seepage channel, but he has not done so and hence, the direction sought for in this Writ Petition cannot be given. 6. It is not in dispute before this Court that the petitioner obtained permission from the concerned authorities for carrying out aquaculture in an extent of Ac.10-49 cents in R.S.No.93/1, 93/2 of Narasimhapuram Village of West Godavari District from 10.07.2009 to 09.07.2014. When respondent No.3 directed the petitioner to stop aquaculture, the petitioner approached this Court and filed W.P.No.21439 of 2010 and this Court disposed of the same and directed respondent No.1 not to interfere with the petitioner’s aquaculture activity; if any complaints are received from the neighbours, the respondent shall conduct an enquiry; however, the authority shall give an opportunity to the petitioner before passing any order adverse to the petitioner’s interest. It seems some of the neighbours made a complaint to respondent No.3 with regard to the petitioner aquaculture activity. Therefore, respondent No.3 issued urgent Notice, dated 30.08.2011 to the petitioner, for which the petitioner submitted an explanation. It is not in dispute before this Court that the petitioner filed application, dated 05.09.2011, for grant of permission for aquaculture wherein he undertook that he will arrange seepage channel around the fish tank and renovate his fish tank as per the guidelines. But, the petitioner did not do so. Therefore, the respondents rightly issued the notice for cancellation of permission. 7. Therefore, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the petitioner to arrange seepage channel around the fish tank within a period of six (6) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Till then, the respondents shall not interfere with the aquaculture of the petitioner. If the petitioner fails to construct the seepage channel around the fish tank within the period aforementioned, the respondents are at liberty to take appropriate decision in accordance with law without giving any notice. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ K.C.BHANU, J DECEMBER 28, 2011. YVL