High Court for State of TelanganaWP/15318/2011withdrawn

Chekka.Raja, v. The State Ofandhra Pradesh

2015-07-17C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy2 pages

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.15318 of 2011 Date:17.7.2015 Between:

Chekka Raja, S/o Chekka Das and two others.

..... Petitioners And The Govt of A.P., reptd by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Hyderabad and six others.

.....Respondents Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri V.Sai Kumar Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 to 6: AGP for Irrigation & CAD (TS) Counsel for Respondent No.7: Sri S.Sridhar The Court made the following:

ORDER:

This Writ Petition is filed for the following substantive relief:

"...to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action on the part of the official respondents 1 to 6 in not taking steps to see that the 7th respondent shall not draw water from the free flow of Godavari River Bed throughout the year violating proviso 13 of the GO.Ms No.503 dated 26-06-1976 and in not cancelling the permission accorded as per Proviso 15 of the said GO as illegal, unconstitutional and arbitrary and consequently, to direct the official respondents 1 to 6 to take necessary steps against respondent No.7 for his violation of condition No.13 of GO.Ms.No.503 dated 26-06-1976 and in consequent thereof, the permission accorded in the said GO may be cancelled as per Proviso No.15 of GO.Ms.No.503 dated 26-06-1976."

At the hearing, it has come out that the petitioners have filed another Writ Petition, viz., Writ Petition No.19181 of 2011 substantially for an identical relief. When Sri V.Sai Kumar, the learned counsel for the petitioners, is confronted with this fact, he has profusely apologized for filing two Writ Petitions for the same relief and requested for permission of the Court to withdraw this Writ Petition.

Though the petitioners as well as their counsel have not acted fairly in filing two Writ Petitions for the same relief, taking a lenient view, the above request of counsel for the petitioners is accepted and the petitioners are permitted to withdraw the Writ Petition.

The Writ Petition is, accordingly, dismissed as withdrawn.

As a sequel to the dismissal of the Writ Petition, W.P.M.P.Nos.18377 and 18378 of 2011 are dismissed as infructuous.

__________________________ JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY 17th July 2015 DR