THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.7340 of 2011 Dated 31st March, 2011 Between: Fishermen Cooperative Marketing Society …Petitioner And The District Collector, Nalgonda, Nalgonda District and others …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Ms.M.Vidyavathi Counsel for Respondents: None appeared The Court made the following: ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in interfering with the petitioner’s fishery rights in Moosi Project notwithstanding grant of permission by Fishery Development Officer, Nalgonda under proceedings No.FDO/N/1011, dated 04.01.2011, as illegal and arbitrary. When this writ petition came up on 22.03.2011, this Court asked the learned counsel for the petitioner whether her client has issued any legal notice to any of the respondents against the alleged interference. The learned counsel has thereupon sought for an adjournment to enable her to get instructions in this regard. Accordingly, the case was adjourned. Today, when the case is taken up for hearing, the learned counsel sought for further adjournment. In my opinion, the averments contained in the writ petition do not pinpoint any of the four respondents who is seeking to interfere with the petitioner’s fishery rights. On an omnibus allegation that the respondents have been interfering with the petitioner’s fishery rights, I am not inclined to entertain this writ petition. If the petitioner feels aggrieved by any hindrance being caused by any or all of the respondents, it is expected to issue a notice to those respondents calling upon them to refrain from such interference. Unless such a prior notice is issued, no mandamus can be sought for (see Kamini Kumar Das Choudhury vs. State of West Bengal[1] and Amrit Lal Berry, K.N.Kapur v. Collector of Central Excise, New Delhi[2]). As the petitioner failed to follow this course, which is a pre- requisite for seeking a writ of mandamus, the writ petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to issue notices to the respondents and avail further remedies in the event the respondents continue to interfere with the petitioner’s fishery rights. As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.9152 of 2011 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 31st March, 2011 VGB [1] AIR 1972 SC 2060 [2] AIR 1975 SC 538