IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY THURSDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF DECEMBER, TWO THOUSAND AND TEN WRIT PETITION No.21219 of 2010 Between: S.V.Ranga Rao and another. … Petitioners. And Deputy Director of Fisheries, Machilipatnam, Krishna District and another. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioners: Sri C.Ramachandra Raju. Counsel for the respondents: G.P. for Fisheries. This Court made the following: ORDER:- This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in interfering with the petitioners’ possession and enjoyment of the lands admeasuring Ac.85.55 cents in Survey Nos.97 to 101, 108 to 112 and 117 of Vinnakota village, Gudlavalleru Mandal, Krishna District, as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to G.O.Ms.No.83, Animal Husbandry, Dairy Development and Fisheries (Fish-II), dated 12-9-2007, read with G.O.Ms.No.18, dated 26-3-2008. The petitioners sought for a consequential declaration that they have permission in pursuance of their applications dated 31-3-2010 and 30-4-2010. In the manner the Writ Petition is proposed to be disposed of, it is not necessary to record the facts in detail. It will suffice to note that the petitioners have made their applications dated 31-3-2010 and 30-4- 2010 to respondent No.2 for grant of permission to carryon aquaculture. It is stated in the counter-affidavit of respondent No.2 that he has rejected the said applications, vide: his endorsements dated 17-7-2010. At the hearing it is not disputed that the issue of granting permission for commencement of aquaculture is governed by the Government Orders - G.O.Ms.No.83 dated 12-9- 2007, G.O.Ms.No.18 dated 26-3-2008 and G.O.Ms.No.24 dated 9-4-2010. By G.O.Ms.No.47, Animal Husbandry, Dairy Development & Fisheries (Fish-II), dated 24-6-2010, the State Government constituted a State Level Committee for considering the applications for setting up of aquaculture units as recommended by the District Level Committees. In view of the fact that respondent No.2 is stated to have rejected the petitioners’ applications, the occasion for placing their applications before the District Level Committee concerned, would not have arisen. Having regard to the admitted fact that the District Level Committee concerned has to first examine the applications and forward the same with its recommendations to the State Level Committee, which eventually takes a decision on the applications, the purported rejection of the petitioners’ applications by respondent No.2 is contrary to the prescribed procedure. Therefore, such rejection cannot be recognized in law and the same is nonest. Consequently, the petitioners’ applications need to be first placed before the District Level Committee, which, in turn, has to send its report/recommendations to the State Level Committee for final decision. In the light of the above discussion, the Writ Petition is disposed of in the following terms: 1) Respondent No.1 shall place the petitioners’ applications before the District Level Committee within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order; 2) within two weeks of receipt of applications by the District Level Committee, it shall send its recommendations to the State Level Committee; and 3) within six weeks of receipt of the applications along with the recommendations of the District Level Committee, the State Level Committee shall consider the entire material submitted by both the parties, including the reports and recommendations, if any, of the subordinate officials, and take a decision on the petitioners’ applications, in accordance with law. Such decision shall be communicated to the petitioners immediately thereafter. Subject to the above directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of. --------------------------------------- C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J Date:30-12-2010 MNR