IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY Writ Petition No.3082 of 2010 Between: Ippila Krishna Devi ..... Petitioner AND 1.The District Collector, West Godavari District at Eluru and 4 others. .....Respondent Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr.S.Syam Sunder Rao Counsel for the Respondents: GP for Fisheries The Court made the following: Order: This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to set aside notice, dated 23-01-2010, whereby respondent No.3 directed the petitioner to stop aquaculture in the ponds over an extent of Ac.28.13 cents of land in R.S.Nos.84, 99/1, 99/2, 99/3, 99/4, 100/1, 100/2, 100/3, 101, 104/2, 104/3 and 104/3 of Manuru Village in Eluru Mandal, West Godavari District, as being illegal, arbitrary and contrary to GO.Ms.No.18, Animal Husbandry, Dairy Development and Fisheries (FII) Department, dated 26-03-2008. I have heard Sri S.Syam Sundar, learned Counsel for the petitioner, and the learned Government Pleader for Fisheries representing the respondents and perused the record. The petitioner claimed to have made an application on 23-04-2008 to respondent No.5- Deputy Director of Fisheries seeking regularization of the existing aquaculture ponds in the abovesaid land by paying requisite process fee. By the impugned notice, the petitioner was informed by respondent No.3- Tahsildar, Eluru, that on the report sent by respondent No.5 to respondent No.1- District Collector, West Godavari District, the latter rejected the petitioner’s application vide his order, dated 12-01-2010. The petitioner was, therefore, called upon to stop the aquaculture activity in the existing fishponds. At the hearing, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that under Clause 3 (iii) of GO.Ms.No.18, dated 26-03-2008, if the application for license is not disposed of within two months from the date of filing of the same, the applicant can go ahead with the construction of new pond and the license is deemed to be issued. He therefore, submitted that in the face of the said Clause, the impugned notice cannot be sustained. I have carefully considered this submission with reference to GO.Ms.No.18, dated 26-03-2008, which amended GO.Ms.No.83, dated 12-09-2007. The said GO dealt with the applications for regularization and those made for setting up new farms separately. The deeming clause contained in respect of the applications filed in setting up new farms is not provided in respect of the applications filed for regularization of existing aquaculture ponds. Therefore, the petitioner cannot derive benefit out of the so-called deeming clause contained in GO.Ms.No.18, dated 26-03-2008. The grievance of the petitioner, however, remains that so far the alleged order of rejection has not been served on her. Neither the said order of rejection has been placed before the Court nor any evidence has been produced by the respondents to show that a copy of the same has been served on the petitioner. In view of the same, respondent Nos.1 to 3 are directed to serve a copy of order of rejection on the petitioner within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Till service of such an order, status quo obtaining as on today shall be maintained. If the petitioner feels aggrieved by the order of rejection, she shall be free to avail appropriate remedy available to her under law. The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Petition, interim order, dated 15-02-2010, is vacated and WPMP.No.4056 of 2010, filed by the petitioner for interim relief, is disposed of as infructuous. ___________________________ (C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J) 17th March, 2010 lur