THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY Writ Petition No.19653 of 2011 Dated 17th October, 2011 Between: Mallapu Venkateswarulu and another …Petitioners And The District Collector, Nellore, SPSR Nellore District and others …Respondents Counsel for the petitioners: Sri Kambhampati Ramesh Babu Counsel for respondent No.4: AGP for Fisheries The Court made the following: ORDER: At the interlocutory stage, the writ petition is taken up for hearing and disposal with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to declare the action of respondent Nos.1 to 4 in not demolishing the saline water ponds established by respondent Nos.5 and 6 in Survey Nos.744 and 745 of Kothapatnam Village, Kota Mandal, SPSR Nellore District, without obtaining permission as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioners own agricultural lands in Survey Nos.235, 236-5 and 241-B of Kothapatnam Village. Their grievance is that respondent Nos.5 and 6 have started saline water prawn culture by digging ponds. The case of the petitioners is that their lands being situated very near to the lands of respondent Nos.5 and 6, who have been carrying on prawn culture therein, their lands are becoming saline rendering them useless for carrying on agriculture. The petitioners filed an additional affidavit along with endorsement No.L.Pari(B) 301/11, dated 01.08.2011, of respondent No.3, wherein it is stated that respondent Nos.5 and 6 have given statements in his office that they are carrying on prawn culture over an extent of Acs.3.55 cents and that the same will be stopped after completion of one crop i.e., after four months. Even though notices are served on respondent Nos.5 and 6 and the petitioners have filed acknowledgment in proof of service, no one entered appearance on behalf of the said respondents. At the hearing, there is no representation for them. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Fisheries appearing for respondent No.4 submitted that in respect of Survey No.745, the prawn culture activity undertaken by respondent Nos.5 and 6 is already closed and that for Survey No.744, action will be taken immediately after harvest of the existing prawn by respondent Nos.5 and 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in S.Jagannath v. Union of India and others[1] and of this Court in Madireddy Padma Rambabu v. District Forest Officer, Kakinada[2], in support of his submission that no aqua culture activity shall be permitted to be undertaken by anybody unless specific permission is obtained from the competent authority. This legal position is indisputable. In fact, the Government has been issuing orders from time to time prescribing applications for and grant of permission by anyone who seeks to undertake aqua culture. The latest Government orders that are in force are G.O.Ms.No.24, dated 09.04.2010 and G.O.Ms.No.67, dated 12.09.2011. Inasmuch as respondent Nos.5 and 6 do not appear to have any permission, respondent No.3 cannot permit them to carry on aqua culture activity by allowing them to harvest the existing prawn. In this view of the matter, respondent No.3 is directed to forthwith ensure that respondent Nos.5 and 6 immediately stop aqua culture activity in both the above-mentioned survey numbers and they shall not resume such activity till they obtain permission from the competent authority. The writ petition is accordingly allowed to the extent indicated above. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.Nos.23761 and 27908 of 2011 are disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 17th October, 2011 VGB [1] AIR 1997 SC 811 [2] 2002(1) ALD 728 (DB)