Penumatcha China Narasimha Raju, v. Mr.Krishna Murthy,

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAJASHEKER REDDY CONTEMPT CASE.No.2155 OF 2014

O R D E R

This Contempt Case is filed alleging the violation of orders dated 27.06.2014 passed in W.P.M.P.No.21885 of 2014 in W.P.No.17486 of 2014 where in this Court directed the respondents 4 and 5 to ensure that G.O.Ms.No.7, dated 16.03.2013 is to be followed by respondents 6 to 11 before undertaking any aquaculture activity. Counter affidavit is filed by the respondent No.2 stating that in pursuant to the directions of this Court the Chairman, District Level Committee, West Godavari issued the certificate of final registration of fresh aquaculture on 19.09.2014 after considering all the aspects and also ensuring the undertaking from the concerned persons as per G.O.Ms.No.7 dated 16.03.2013.

Thereafter, when the official respondents came to know that the unofficial respondents dug a bore well without compliance to the provisions of WALTA Act, 2002, they issued notices asking the unofficial respondents to close the bore wells and also called for the report from the Fisheries Development Officer. It is also stated that Deputy Director, Fisheries, West Godavari was also requested to take action against the unofficial respondents and also for cancellation of Certificate of Final Registration of fresh water aquaculture farm. Consequent to the notices issued, the unofficial respondents have closed their illegal aquaculture activities. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though Deputy Director of Fisheries was requested to take consequential action against the unofficial respondents and also to cancel final registration certificate, no action has not been taken.

On the other hand, learned Government Pleader for Revenue submits that the order has been complied with and consequential action will be taken by the Deputy Director of Fisheries. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Fisheries also submits that consequential

action will be taken.

Since it is stated that the concerned authority will take consequential action against the unofficial respondents and since the same is not disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner, I do not see any contempt is committed by the respondents. Accordingly, the contempt case is closed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending if any, shall stand closed.

___________________________ A.RAJASHEKER REDDY,J Date: 18.06.2015 dv