HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY W.P.No.20128 of 2010 Date : 21-1-2011 Between : Bogiri Krishna Kumari .. Petitioner And The Deputy Director of Fisheries, Guntur, Guntur District and other .. Respondents Counsel for petitioner : Sri T.V.V. Koteswara Rao Counsel for respondent No.1:Assistant Government Pleader for Fisheries Counsel for respondent Nos.2 & 3 : The Court made the following : ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed for a mandamus to declare the action of respondent No.1 in issuing notice dated 7-8- 2010 proposing to demolish the fish tanks as illegal and arbitrary. I have heard Sri T.V.V. Koteswara Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Fisheries. The petitioner has constructed fish ponds over an extent of Ac.5-75 cents in R.S.Nos.427 and 428 of Mulapalem village, Bapatla Mandal, Guntur District. As he did not obtain prior permission for such construction, he has received notice dated 24-4-2010 from the Assistant Director, Fisheries wherein he was asked to apply in prescribed proforma for regularisation of the aqua culture within 15 days from the date of receipt of the said notice. It is the pleaded case of the petitioner that on receipt of the said notice, he has taken a demand draft for Rs.4200/- representing the fees for an extent of Ac.5.07 cents and enclosed the same to his application dated 27-5-2010. The petitioner further pleaded that the said application, along with the demand draft, was handed over to the office Assistant of respondent No.1 on 27-5-2010 itself. However, on 7-8-2010, the Assistant Director, Fisheries, has issued the impugned notice wherein it is stated that the petitioner has not responded to the earlier notice dated 24- 4-2010. Feeling aggrieved by the said notice, the petitioner filed the present Writ Petition. In the counter-affidavit filed by the Deputy Director of Fisheries, Guntur, respondent No.1, it is inter alia stated that as the petitioner has not obtained permission for carrying on aqua culture activity, the Assistant Director has issued notice dated 24-4-2010 calling upon the petitioner to apply for regularisation and that despite receipt of the said notice, the petitioner has neither applied for regularisation nor responded. Therefore, the impugned notice was issued. At the hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn my attention to a copy of the purported application dated 27-5-2010 stated to have been handed over by the petitioner in the office of respondent No.1. The petitioner has also filed a copy of the demand draft dated 25-5-2010 drawn on Bank of Baroda, Guntur branch, in favour of respondent No.1 for a sum of Rs.4200/-. On receipt of the impugned notice, the petitioner is stated to have sent a letter to respondent No.1 on 12-8-2010 wherein he has stated that upon the office Assistant by name Sri Srinivas Lingam serving notice dated 24-4-2010, the petitioner has obtained demand draft No.120013, dated 25-5-2010 for Rs.4200/- and handed over the same along with the application for regularisation to the said office Assistant who collected the same from the petitioner and others and promised to give receipt later. The petitioner has made a reference to this reply issued by him in paragraph-5 of his affidavit. The facts discussed above would show that while it is the pleaded case of the petitioner that in response to notice dated 24-4-2010, he has applied for regularisation along with the demand draft for Rs.4200/-, respondent No.1 has denied this claim of the petitioner. This being a disputed question of fact, it is not possible for this court to adjudicate such a dispute. However, the fact remains that the petitioner has filed a copy of the purported demand draft taken in the name of respondent No.1. This prima facie gives rise to a reasonable presumption that the petitioner would have enclosed the demand draft along with the application and handed over in the office of respondent No.1. However, in the absence of proof of the petitioner’s claim, no conclusive finding can be rendered on this aspect. But, taking into consideration the fact that the demand draft was obtained by the petitioner which establishes bonafides on his part, I deem it appropriate that an opportunity should be provided to the petitioner to make a fresh application by obtaining a fresh demand draft towards the fees required to be paid for regularisation. Within two weeks from today, the petitioner shall make a fresh application along with the demand draft. Respondent No.1 shall receive such application, if made within the above mentioned time and process the same treating it as having been received within time. The competent authority shall thereupon take appropriate decision on such application of the petitioner. Till this exercise is completed, no steps for demolition of the fish tanks shall be taken. Subject to the above directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of. ____________________ C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy.,J Date : 21-1-2010 AM AM