IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.21439 of 2010 Between: B.N.V.S.S. Kishore Kumar … Petitioner And The District Collector, West Godavari at Eluru & others. … Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri S. V. Ramana for Sri O. Manohar Reddy Counsel for the respondents: AGP for Revenue The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.21439 of 2010 ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the action of respondent No.3 in directing the petitioner to stop aquaculture over an extent of Ac.10.49 cents in Sy.No.92/1, 2 and 3 and 93/1 and 2 of Narasimhapuram Village, West Godavari District, as illegal and arbitrary. I have heard Sri S.V. Ramana representing Sri O. Manohar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue. The petitioner obtained permission from the competent authority for carrying on aquaculture in the abovementioned land from 10.07.2009 to 09.07.2014. He alleged that despite subsistence of the said permission, respondent No.3 has been unduly interfering with his aquaculture activity. The petitioner, therefore, filed the present writ petition to restrain respondent No.3 from causing such interference. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue, on instructions, submitted that on the complaints of the neighbouring owners of the agricultural lands, respondent No.3 has commenced enquiry and that no order has so far been passed by the competent authority cancelling the petitioner’s permission. In my opinion, so long as the permission granted in favour of the petitioner is in force, the respondents cannot interfere with his aquaculture activity. If complaints are received, the respondents are entitled to hold an enquiry. However, the competent authority shall give the petitioner an opportunity before passing any order adverse to his interest. Subject to the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, WPMP.No.27265 of 2010 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. __________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 07.09.2010. ES