THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN Writ Petition Nos. 978 and 17352 of 2001 Common Order: The action of the ﬁrst respondent in issuing proceedings dated 29.01.2001 is questioned in this writ petition as arbitrary and illegal. The ﬁrst respondent, vide proceedings dated 29.01.2001, held that pursuant to the representation of the villagers of Thokada village of Rajanagaram Mandal, East Godavari District, the M.F. tank was allotted as fresh water tank as the Divisional Panchayat Oﬃcer, Rajahmundry, had inspected the M.F. tank and reported that the water was being polluted due to disposal of lease rights to the Fishermen Co-operative Society. The case of the petitioners, in short, is that they were granted lease rights over the ﬁsh tanks for the period from 01.07.1997 to 30.06.2000 and after taking the tanks on lease they had laid ﬁsh seeds, that there existed grown up ﬁsh ready for catching, but as the lease period was to expire the petitioners made a representation seeking extension of lease for a further period of ﬁve years. They would submit that they ﬁled W.P. No.978 of 2001 and that this Court had passed an interim order on 24.01.2001 directing the respondents to consider their representation for leasing out ﬁshing rights. The petitioners would contend that, consequent to their ﬁling of contempt case in C.C. No.267 of 2001, proceedings dated 29.01.2001 were issued. Their grievance is that they were not given an opportunity of hearing before the impugned action was taken, that the impugned order, allotting the tanks as fresh water tank, is bereft of reasons, that the ﬁrst respondent had no jurisdiction to change the use of L.F. tank, which is vested with the fourth respondent, under Section 81 of the A.P. Gram Panchayat Act, 1994 (for short ‘the Act’), that the ﬁsh reared by the petitioners was readily available for catching and was now sought to be sold departmentally. They would seek to have the proceedings dated 29.01.2001 set aside on these grounds. A counter aﬃdavit is ﬁled on behalf of the fourth respondent by the Sarpanch of the Thokada Grampanchayat contending that the lease period expired on 30.06.2000, that the petitioners had not laid any seedlings after expiry of the lease period since, after catching of the ﬁsh during the year 2000, no water would remain, that in view of the representation of the villagers on 16.05.2000, requesting the Grampanchayat and the District Collector to convert the only tank existing in the village as a fresh water tank for drinking purpose, the District Collector had directed the District Panchayat Oﬃcer and the Divisional Panchayat Oﬃcer to submit a report on the request made by the villagers, that the said oﬃcers personally visited the village and veriﬁed the situation of the tank and submitted a report to the District Collector stating that there was an acute need of fresh water for drinking purpose for the villagers as it was the only tank in the village which catered to the drinking water needs of the villagers and their cattle, that the villagers had also complained to the enquiry oﬃcers that, if the tank was leased to ﬁshermen, the entire tank would be spoiled by putting waste material like poultry wastage and other material for the feed of the ﬁsh and that the water was not useful either for drinking or washing clothes or for the drinking water for cattle and, keeping in view all these diﬃculties being faced by the villagers, it was recommended for setting apart the entire tank for drinking water purpose. Reference is made to Section 81 of the A.P. Panchayat Raj Act to contend that the power to have the tanks declared as fresh water tanks is referable thereto. It is further stated that, once the tank was notiﬁed as fresh tank, the question of granting ﬁshing rights does not arise and that the petitioners cannot dictate terms to the Grampanchayat or the District Collector. It is further stated that, in the interest of public, the District Collector was empowered to pass orders as contemplated under Section 80(3) of the Act. It is also stated that no proceedings were issued extending the lease for the period 2000-03 and that, on expiry of the lease on 30.06.2000, the petitioners had no right to lay ﬁsh seedlings. The 4th respondent also denied that the petitioners had reared ﬁsh in the tank after the lease period was over. It is stated that, in view of the interim orders, the ﬁsh which had naturally grown in the tank had been caught departmentally and that the amount was lying with the Fisheries Department. It is evident from the counter aﬃdavit of the 4 th respondent that the tank, for which the petitioners were hitherto granted ﬁshing rights, is the only tank in the village, which is situated in the uplands areas of East Godavari District. It is also evident from the counter affidavit of the 4th respondent that the villagers of the said village had speciﬁcally requested that the tank be kept as a fresh water tank to enable the residents of the village to have access to drinking water for themselves and for the cattle. The right to access to drinking water is fundamental to life and there is a duty on the State under Article 21 of the Constitution of India to provide drinking water to its citizens (A.P. Pollution Control Board II v. Prof. M.V. Nayudu (2001 (2) SCC 62). It is also evident that the lease, which was granted in favour of the petitioners, to carry on ﬁshing in the tank, expired on 30.06.2000. The action of the ﬁrst respondent is in larger public interest. It would have been a diﬀerent matter altogether if, instead of using the tank as a fresh water tank, the respondents had sought to confer leasing rights on some others. That is not the case on hand. Since the period of lease expired, the petitioners cannot be heard to contend that they ought to have been given an opportunity of being heard before the ﬁshing tank was converted as a fresh water tank. Under Section 81(1)(a) of the A.P. Panchayat Raj Act, the Gram panchayat may, in the interests of public health, regulate or prohibit ﬁshing in any tank and may set apart any such place for drinking purposes. The petitioners grievance that the power is conferred on the Grampanchayat, and not on the District Collector does not merit acceptance, for the simple reason that it is evident from the counter aﬃdavit ﬁled on behalf of the Grampanchayat itself that it was at the request of the villagers that the District Collector had passed such an order. It is not as if the Grampanchayat has any grievance in this regard. Providing drinking water to the villagers is certainly in larger public interest and the petitioners’ grievance of non- extension of the leasing rights for ﬁshing purpose must necessarily yield. I see no reason to grant the relief sought for in the writ petitions. The writ petitions fail and are, accordingly, dismissed. __________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J. Date: 05.11.2008 Nsr