Telangana High Court
WP/33106/2010 of N.Rama Krishnam Raju, Vs The State of A.P., on 29 December 2010
C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY W.P.No.33106 of 2010 Date : 29-12-2010 Between: N.Rama Krishnam Raju s/o.Subbaraju and others .. Petitioners and The State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Secretary, Fisheries Department, Secretariat, A.P., Hyderabad and others .. Respondents Counsel for petitioners
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY
W.P.No.33106 of 2010
Date : 29-12-2010
Between:
N.Rama Krishnam Raju s/o.Subbaraju
and others
.. Petitioners
and
The State of Andhra Pradesh,represented by its Secretary,Fisheries Department,Secretariat, A.P., Hyderabad and others
.. Respondents
Counsel for petitioners : Sri M.Subramanyam Counsel for respondents : Assistant Government Pleader forRevenue The Court made the following:
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.
ORDER:
This Writ Petition is filed for a mandamus to declareinterference by respondent No.4 with the petitioners aqua cultureoperations in an extent of Ac.16-35 cents in S.Nos.59, 66, 68 and69/1 to 3 of Gannavaram village, Mandavalli Mandal, KrishnaDistrict,as illegal and arbitrary.
The petitioners are stated to have submitted theirapplications on 23-1-2009 and 15-1-2010 respectively for grantof permission for running of aqua culture and that in view of non-disposal of those applications, the clause pertaining to deemedpermission contained in G.O.Ms.No.83, Animal Husbandry, DairyDevelopment and Fisheries (Fish-II) Department, dated 12-9-2007has come into operation. The grievance of the petitioners is thatdespite such deemed permission, respondent No.4has beeninterfering with their aqua culture operations.
The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue, oninstructions, submitted that certain complaints were made againstthe activities of the petitioners and that in connection therewithrespondent No.4 is contemplating action against the petitioners. Hefurther submitted that so far, respondent No.4 has not interfered withthe petitioners’ activities and that as and when he seeks to causesuch interference, he will do so only by following due process of law.
The above statement of the learned Assistant GovernmentPleader is placed on record and the Writ Petition is accordinglydisposed of.
As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Petition, WPMP
No.42039/2010 is disposed of as infructuous.
____________________
C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy.,J
Date : 29-12-2010AM