Fishermern Co-Operative Society, v. The District Collector,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD

FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH * * * * CASE NO. W.P.No.23082 of 2012 Between:

Fishermen Cooperative Society, represented by its President, Adilabad .. Petitioner and The District Collector, Adilabad and others .. Respondents DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED: 12.08.2015 SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL:

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY

1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers Yes/No may be allowed to see the Judgments?

2. Whether the copies of judgment may be Yes/No marked to Law Reporters/Journals?

3. Whether Their Ladyship/Lordship wish to Yes/No see the fair copy of the Judgment?

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.23082 of 2012 12.08.2015 Between:

Fishermen Cooperative Society, represented by its President, Adilabad .. Petitioner and The District Collector, Adilabad and others .. Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: M/s.Rastrapal Counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3: Assistant Government Pleader for Fisheries (TS) Counsel for respondent No.4: None appeared The Court made the following:

ORDER:

This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to set aside letter No.562/D/2012, dated 19.07.2012, of respondent No.3, directing the petitioner to remove the iron mesh laid by it near Pandyapuri of Kedam river on or before 28.07.2012.

Counter-affidavit has been filed by respondent No.3. The necessity to advert to the contents of the counter-affidavit and the affidavit of the impleaded respondents is obviated for the reason that at the hearing, it is admitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the iron mesh has been removed and that same is not in existence as on today. While the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Fisheries (TS) and Mr.A.Jagan, learned counsel for the impleaded respondents, submitted that the petitioner itself removed the iron mesh, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the iron mesh was forcibly removed by the subordinates of respondent No.3 and the impleaded respondents. It is unnecessary for this Court to delve into the issue as to who removed the iron mesh. As the fact remains that the iron mesh was removed after the filing of the writ petition, the prayer in the writ petition to set aside the impugned letter of respondent No.3 directing removal of iron mesh has become infructuous.

The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed as infructuous. As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.29469 of 2012, W.V.M.P.No.3804 of 2012 and W.V.M.P.(SR)No.140584 of 2012 shall stand dismissed as infructuous.

__________________________

C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 12th August, 2015 GHN