IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO : 2710 of 2005 Between: 1 Pydi Nageswara Rao, S/o. Ram aRao, R/o. Perampeta Village, Jangareddigudem Mandal, West Godavari District. 2 Rachgurlla Venkata Swamy, S/o. Atchiyya, R/o. Perampeta Village, Jangareddigudem Mandal, West Godavari District. 3 Gaddam Nagi Reddy, S/o. Chinaa Rami Reddy, R/o. Perampeta Village, Jangareddigudem Mandal, West Godavari District. 4 Mupana Sujatha, W/o. Yesureddy, R/o. Perampeta Village, Jangareddigudem Mandal, West Godavari District. 5 Manikala Veeraswamy, S/o. Swmaiah, R/o. Perampeta Village, Jangareddigudem Mandal, West Godavari District. 6 Sapthinapalli Satyanarayana, S/o. Ramulu, R/o. Perampeta Village, Jangareddigudem Mandal, West Godavari District. 7 Goli Gangireddy, S/o. Venkata Reddy, R/o. Perampeta Village, Jangareddigudem Mandal, West Godavari District. 8 Gaddam Venkata Reddy, S/o. Narasimha Reddy, R/o. Perampeta Village, Jangareddigudem Mandal, West Godavari District. 9 Paydimerla Venkayamma, W/o. Appi Reddy, R/o. Perampeta Village, Jangareddigudem Mandal, West Godavari District. 10 Muppana Chinababu Reddy, S/o. Venkata Reddy, R/o. Perampeta Village, Jangareddigudem Mandal, West Godavari District. 11 Mupana Kanna Reddy, S/o. Nagi Reddy, R/o. Perampeta Village, Jangareddigudem Mandal, West Godavari District. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 The Government of A.P. rep by its Secretary, Irrigation and Command Area Development Department, Secretariat Building, Hyderabad. 2 The Chief Engineer, Medium Irrigation, Hyderabad. 3 The Superintendent Engineer, Construction Circle, Dhavaleswaram, East Godavari Districtr. 4 The Executive Engineer, Yerrakala Project Division, Jangareddygudem, West Godavari District. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents proposing to dig a parallel left canal to the existing left main canal of the Yerrakalva Reservoir Project starting from Kongavarigudem to Venkata Ramanjapuram instead of widening the existing left main canal with required radius for providing irrigation facilities to Tirumalapuram ryots is illegal, arbitrary, highhanded and contrary to the procedure and purpose mentioned in the G.O.Ms.No. 135 irrigation and CAD (IRR.II) Department, dt. 5-9-2003 and also violation of the fundamental rights guaranteed under the constitution of India and also violation of the fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution of India and consequently direct the Respondents to withdraw the idea of digging separate left canal and widen the existing canal to the radius to facilitate irrigation sources to lands of Tirumalapuram Village and other villages and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case Counsel for the Petitioners : MR. Y.V.RAVI PRASAD Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR IRRIGATION & COMM AREA DEV. The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO : 2710 of 2005 ORAL ORDER The petitioners herein claim to be the residents of Perampeta Village, Jangareddigudem Mandal, West Godavari District who are cultivating small extents of land by drawing water from the left main canal of Yerrakalva project which was dug in the year 1995. This writ petition is filed seeking a declaration that the action of the respondents in proposing to dig a parallel canal to the existing left main canal of Yerrakalva Reservoir Project for providing irrigation facilities to Tirumalapuram ryots is arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the procedure and purpose mentioned in G.O.Ms.No.135 Irrigation and CAD(IRR.II) Department, dated.05.09.2003. The petitioners also sought a direction to the respondents to withdraw the idea of digging a separate canal and instead to widen the existing canal to facilitate the irrigation sources to the lands of Tirumalapuram village. In the counter-affidavit filed by the Executive Engineer, Yerrakalva Project Division, Jangareddigudem on behalf of the respondents it is explained that left canal is having 17 distributaries and 16-L Major is one of the distributary channel. It is further stated that the petitioners were under the wrong impression that 16-L canal was irrigating an extent of 5000 acres. As a matter of fact 16-L is one of the distributary channels to left main canal to irrigate an extent of 550 acres only. It is further stated that having considered the request of the ryots to extend the irrigation facilities to the upland Ayacut from Yerrakalva Reservoir Project, the Government sanctioned Rs.144.50 Crores vide G.O.Ms.No.135 dated.05- 09-2003 to provide irrigation facilities to the upland Ayacut of 8000 acres. Pursuant thereto, all the merits de-merits and technical aspects were examined and a decision was taken to extend the left main canal which runs parallel to the 16-L Major distributary channel. It is further explained that 16-L major distributary channel cannot be widened to accommodate 3.2 to 5 times additional discharge to the existing discharging capacity of the channel. It is also stated that the proposed extension of left main canal is started from left side of the bank of existing 16-L distributary channel and no separate cultivated land is available in between the canals and channels. It is also stated that the proposed action is in terms of G.O.Ms.No.135 dated.05-09-2003 and that no purpose would be served if 16-L distributory is widened as suggested by the petitioners. Heard both sides. From the details furnished by the 4th respondent in the counter- affidavit it is clear that it is not feasible to widen the existing canal and the impugned parallel left canal has been taken up after considering various technical aspects. The jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot be extended to investigate into the correctness of such decision based upon expert opinion in the absence of any mala fides. However, the learned counsel for the petitioners while referring to a letter dated.28-10-2004 addressed by the Executive Engineer contended that the construction of the parallel canal was taken up only to avoid additional expenditure of about Rs.35 lakhs and that the same cannot be a valid ground to justify the impugned action. In the letter dated.28-10- 2004 it was mentioned by the Executive Engineer that if the request of the petitioners was acceded, an additional amount of Rs.35 lakhs would have to be spent. That was an internal correspondence between the official respondents and at any rate it cannot be presumed that the construction of the parallel canal was approved only to avoid additional expenditure. As noticed above various technical aspects were taken into consideration by the respondents before concluding that no purpose would be served by widening 16-L distributary as suggested by the petitioners. No other allegation is made by the petitioners attributing mala faides to any one of the official respondents. In the circumstances the interference by this Court is not warranted on any ground what-so-ever and accordingly the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. _______________ G. ROHINI, J. Dt. 10.02.2009 Tsnr/gbs