THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 13717 OF 2007 Dated 29th June 2007 Between: Narsugari Yellam & another …Petitioners and The Govt.of A.P., rep.by its Special Secretary To Govt., Animal Husbandry Dairy Development and Fisheries Department, A.P.Secretariat, Hyderabad & others …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 13717 OF 2007 O R D E R: The petitioners claim to be fishermen of Rudraram village of Mirdoddi Mandal, Medak District. There is a Fishermen Cooperative Society for that village, i.e. the 4th respondent herein. Petitioners and certain others submitted an application, seeking admission into the 4th respondent society. Since no action was taken thereon, they approached the Assistant Director of Fisheries, Medak, the 3rd respondent herein. On his direction, the Fisheries Development Officer conducted skill test. The petitioners and 31 others were found to have been qualified. The 3rd respondent, in turn, directed the 4th respondent to admit the persons, who are qualified in the test, as members. Aggrieved by this communication, the 4th respondent filed an appeal before the 2nd respondent. It is stated that the 2nd respondent passed an order, directing that the skill test be conducted, not only to the fresh applicants, but also to the members, who are already admitted into the society. Feeling aggrieved by this, the 4th respondent filed revision before the 1st respondent. It is said to be pending. The grievance of the petitioners is that the 1st respondent has not disposed of the matter, as yet, though notice of hearing was issued, as long back as on 2.12.2006. It is contended that taking advantage of the pendency of the revision before the 1st respondent, the 4th respondent is misutilizing the funds of the society. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Government Pleader for Fisheries. The dispute in relation to the admission of the petitioners, as members of the 4th respondent society, has now landed before the 1st respondent, in the form of a revision. In fact, the dispute was pending since last more than 5 to 6 years. The petitioners hail from weaker sections, and unless their rights are decided, at the earliest, the very purpose of constituting a society, for the benefit of the weaker sections, would be defeated. For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition is disposed of, directing the 1st respondent, to hear and decide the revision pending before it, in respect of which a notice of hearing in letter No.1209/FISH.II(1)/2003-09, dated 2.12.2006, was issued, within a period of six (6) weeks, from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, after giving an opportunity to the concerned. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________ 29th June 2007 PAN