Bandila Meri, W/O. Subbarayudu v. The Govt. Of Andhra Pradesh

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE S.V.BHATT Writ Petition No.32094 of 2012 ORDER :

The petitioner complains against the inaction of the respondents in disposing of the representation of petitioner filed requesting the respondents to take action against the unauthorized and illegal aqua/prawn culture ponds established in R.S.No.330 of Moripodu Village of Sakhinetipalli Mandal, as illegal and unconstitutional.

On 12-10-2012, notice to respondents was ordered. The 4th Respondent filed counter-affidavit and the relevant portion of the counter-affidavit reads as under :

"In reply to para 4 and 5, it is respectfully submitted that the allegations made by the petitioner are not true and correct, as action was taken promptly by 4th respondent on immediate receipt of the petitioner's petition from 2nd respondent vide Letter L.Dis.J/2646/2012, dated 23-062012, by instructing the Fisheries Development Officer, Razole to enquire into the matter and take action and to stop the illegal culture as reported in the petition, vide Memo.No.222/280/Moripodu/A3/2012, dated 25-07-2012. Accordingly, the Fisheries Development Officer, Razole has taken action by making efforts to conduct enquiry for verification of valid permissions if any possessed by Mr.Gaddam Ramesh and his relatives, to stop illegal Aquaculture activity as reported. But due to refusal to take notice on two occasions by Mr.Gaddam Ramesh for appearing before enquiry, it is presumed that Mr.Gaddam Ramesh or his relatives are not having any valid permission issued by competent authorities and under

these circumstances the F.D.O., Razole has addressed the Tahsildar, Sakinetipalli Mandal, for taking action to stop illegal prawn culture against the defaulter vide Letter No.F.D.O/R/2012, dated 28-08-2012, under a copy marked to the respondent No.2, and under intimation to the petitioner. In the mean while the petitioner has filed the W.P. in the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh with false and baseless allegations."

The learned counsel for the petitioner having regard to the stand taken in the counter-affidavit requests the Court to place the stand on record and dispose of the Writ Petition accordingly.

The statement is accepted as the 4th Respondent has explained the action taken on the representation. No further orders are necessary in the writ petition.

The Writ Petition is disposed of as indicated above. No order as to costs.

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand disposed of.

______________ S.V. BHATT, J.

Date:23.02.2016 skmr