Telangana High Court
WP/23270/2005 of Gollapothu Sarada, Vs The Commissioner, on 26 December 2005
SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY DATED: 26-12-2005 WRIT PETITION No.23270 OF 2005 BETWEEN: G.Sarada and others . . .Petitioners And The Commissioner, Department of Fisheries, Govt. of A.P., Hyderabad, and others . . .Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY
DATED: 26-12-2005
WRIT PETITION No.23270 OF 2005
BETWEEN:
G.Sarada and others . . .Petitioners
And
The Commissioner, Department of Fisheries, Govt. of A.P., Hyderabad, and others . . .Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY
WRIT PETITION No.23270 OF 2005
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
O R D E R:
The petitioners claim to be the fishermen living at Chinnapallipalem Village,Karedu Hamlet, Ulavapadu Mandal, Prakasam District. They state that therespondents had introduced a scheme in the year 2003-2004 for construction of26 houses in their village for the benefit of fishermen. According to them, theidentified beneficiaries were required to make necessary arrangements andeven to provide foundations for the houses by themselves and in the fond hopeof getting financial aid, the petitioners and others have removed their oldhouses and have put up foundations. It is alleged that the officials of the firstrespondent have made improper verification and reported that the foundationswere laid only for eleven houses and did not include the names of thepetitioners in the list of beneficiaries. A representation is said to have beensubmitted on 01-12-2004 on behalf of the petitioners through Traditional Fishermen ServiceOrganisation. Their grievance is that so far, no action has been taken thereon.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned standing counsel forthe respondents.
This Court is not in a position to grant any specific relief to the petitioners dueto uncertainty in the factual position. The question as to whether the petitionerswere included in the list of beneficiaries in the initial stage or the circumstancesunder which they were required to provide foundations to the houses, are notbefore this Court. On behalf of the petitioners, a representation was submitted on 01-12-2004. Respondents 1 and 2 are under obligation to consider the sameand take appropriate action.
Hence, the writ petition is disposed of, leaving it open to respondents 1 and 2 toconsider the representation, dated 01-12-2004, submitted by the TraditionalFishermen Service Organisation, and pass appropriate orders, within a periodof two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be noorder as to costs.
26[th] DECEMBER, 2005.
________________________
(L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J)
kvni