Partly allowed

Sri. Pothuraju Ramesh v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC11 Jan 2024WP/1320/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court set aside a final notice ordering demolition of fish tank bunds, holding that issuing the notice on the same day as the petitioner's explanation violated natural justice. The matter was remanded for fresh consideration.

What did the court decide?

Impugned final notice dated 28.12.2023 set aside; matter remanded to 3rd respondent for fresh consideration of petitioner's explanation within two weeks.

Sri. Pothuraju Ramesh Vs The State of Andhra… — Service and Employment | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI

¶2

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

FRIDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON’BLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 1320 OF 2024

¶7

Between:

¶8

Sri. Pothuraju Ramesh, S/o. Venkateswarlu, aged about 55 years, R/o. Jangamvari Doruvu Village, Indukurpet Mandal, SPSR^{NelloreDistrict.}

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by Principal Secretary (Fisheries Department), Secretariat Building, Velgapudi, Guntur^District.

¶12

The Joint Director, Fisheries Department, Baktavatsala Nagar, Near RTO Office, Nellore City, SPSR Nellore District.

¶13

The Fisheries Development Officer, Baktavatsala Nagar, Near RTO Office, Nellore City, SPSR Nellore District.

¶14

The Mandal Fisheries Assistant, Koruturu Village, Indukurpet Mandal, SPSR Nellore District.

¶15

The Tahsildar, Indukurpet Mandal, SPSR Nellore District.

¶16

...RESPONDENTS

¶17

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ Petition more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents herein in trying to demolish and remove the tank bunds of the petitioner wherein the petitioner is carrying out pisciculture in his lands to an extent of Ac. 1.98 Cents in Sy.No. 838 of Indukurpet Bit - I revenue Village, Indukurpet Mandal,^{SPSRNelloreDistrict} without taking into consideration the explanation given by this Petitioner dated 28-12-2023 and issued final notice on the same date i.e. on 28-12-2023 as illegal, arbitrary and opposed to the established principles of law and consequently set aside the final notice dated 2812-2023 issued by the 3rd respondent herein.

¶18

lA NO: 1 OF 2024

¶19

Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated

¶20

t i. in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High Court may be pleased

¶21

-to direct the respondents herein to not to demolish the tank bunds of the

¶22

,petitioner wherein the petitioner is carrying out pisciculture in his lands to an extent of Ac. 1.98 Cents in Sy.No. 838 of Indukurpet Bit - I revenue Village Indukurpet Mandal, SPSR Nellore District pending disposal of the present writ petition.

¶23

Counsel for the Petitioner: Smt. K. PALLAVI

¶24

Counsel for the Respondents No.1 to 4: GP FOR FISHERIES

¶25

Counsel for the Respondent No.5: GP FOR REVENUE

¶26

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶27

HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE V.SUJATHA

¶28

WRIT PETITION No. 1320 OF 2024

¶29

ORDER:

¶30

This writ petition came to be filed under Article 226^of

¶31

the Constitution of India, seeking the following re^lief:-

¶32

issue an appropriate Writ more pariicitlarly one in^the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents herein in trying to demolish and remove^thetank bunds of the petitioner wherein the petitioner is carrying out pisciculture in his lands to an extent of Ac. 1.98 Cents in Sy. No. 838 of Indukurpet Bit-I revenue Village, Indukurpet Mandal, SPSR Nellore District without taking into consideration the explanation given by this Petitioner dated 28.12.2023 and issued final notice on the same date i. e., on 28.12.2023 as illegal, arbitrary and opposed to the established principles of law and consequently set aside the final notice dated • 28.12.2023 issued by the 3^^^ respondent herein....”

¶33

The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that the petitioner is the absolute owner and possessor of the wet land to an extent of Ac. 1.98 cents in Sy.No.838 of Indukurpet Bit-I Revenue village, Indukurpet Mandal, SPSR Nellore District. Subsequently, the petitioner converted the said land^intofish ponds and started doing Pisciculture and continuing the same from last 10 years without any complaints from any corner. Accordingly, the petitioner was also issued a valid

¶34

¶35

licence by the respondent authorities vide License No.ADNLFWNEO12761 and carrying the Pisciculture in the said land.

¶36

While the ihatter being so, the 3rd respondent issued notice on 27.09.2023 stating that they have received a complaint from one Nagireddy Kistamma, W/o.Siva Kumar stating that because of the sewage in the petitioner’s fish pond, water was floating to the field of the said complainant and causing loss to her fields and directed the petitioner^to submit an explanation. Accordingly, the petitioner submitted his explanation on 07.10.2023. In spite of the said explanation, the respondents issued the second notice on 14.12.2023 for which the petitioner has also submitted explanation on 28.12.2023.

¶37

The grievai^ce of the petitioner is that in spite of submitting the explanations, the respondents without considering the same, issued the final notice on the same day i.e., on 28.12.2023 alleging that the petitioner failed to submit his explanation to the two notices. It is further directed in the final notice that if the petitioner failed to clear the sewage

¶38

¶39

immediately on receipt of the said notice, as per the^ordersof ; the Joint Director of Fisheries Department, Nellore under the APSADA Act and the G.O.No.7, the bunds of the petitioner will be demolished in the presence of the Mandal Committee. Challenging the same, present Writ Petition is filed.

¶40

It is an admitted fact that the petitioner has been carrying the Aqua-culture activity in pursuance of the license issued by the respondent authorities under the Andhra Pradesh State Aquaculture Development Authority Act,²⁰²⁰ APSADA Act]. Whereas the respondents, basing on a complaint made by one N.Kistamma, initially issued a notice on 27.09.2023, to which the petitioner has submitted an explanation. But, however, on a perusal of the said explanation it would be observed that there is no guch endorsement to show that said explanation was received by the respondent authorities. However, the respondents^issued the second notice on 14.12.2023 directing the petitioner to take steps within a period of one week, for not floating^the waste water into the neighbouring fields and the petitioner has submitted an explanation dated 28.12.2023, whereas on

¶41

¶42

the very same day, the respondents issued the impugned notice dated 28.12.2023 stating that as the petitioner failed to respond to the earlier two notices, as such action would be initiated by duly demolishing the petitioner’s fish tank in the presence of the Mandal Committee. Said explanation dated 28.12.2023 is placed as a material paper on record.

¶43

Therefore, in view of the fact that the petitioner has submitted explanation on 28.12.2023, it is the responsibility of the respondents to consider the same and to pass final

¶44

orders. But in the present case, without considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner, the final notice was issued on 28.12.2023 in the name of the petitioner stating that as the petitioner failed to respond to the earlier notices. action would be initiated duly demolishing the petitioner’s fish tank in the presence of the Mandal Committee, which is admittedly m violation of the principles of natural justice.

¶45

In view of the same, this Court feels it appropriate to set aside the impugned notice dated 28.12.2023 issued by^the3rd respondent; the matter is remanded back to the respondent No.3 for fresh consideration and to pass appropriate orders by

¶46

¶47

duly taking into account the explanation suomitted by the petitioner on 28.12.2023, within a period of two (02) weeks,

¶48

from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.

¶49

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed. No costs.

¶50

As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any,

¶51

shall also stand closed.

¶52

Sd/-B. PRASADA RAO ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

To,

SECTION OFFICER

The Principal Secretary (Fisheries Department), State of Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat Building, Velgapudi, Guntur District.

¶57

The Joint Director, Fisheries Department, Baktavatsala Nagar, Near RTO Office, Nellore City, SPSR Nellore District.

¶58

The Fisheries Development Officer, Baktavatsala Nagar, Near RTO Office, Nellore City, SPSR Nellore District.

¶59

The Mandal Fisheries Assistant, Koruturu Village, Indukurpet Mandal, SPSR Nellore District.

¶60

The Tahsildar, Indukurpet Mandal, SPSR Nellore District. 6. One CC to Smt. K. PALLAVI, Advocate [OPUC] 7. Two CCs to GP FOR FISHERIES, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] 8. Two CCs to GP FOR REVENUE, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] 9. Three C.D.Copies nm gi

HIGH COURT

DATED:12/01/2024

ORDER

WP.No.1320 of 2024

Copiks
2£\5\2J+
D6L

/r3>
u
% -ttVi
i-
jf