Disposed

Bondada Pullayya v. the State of Ap

Andhra Pradesh HC2 Jan 2024WP/2526/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A petitioner facing threatened demolition of fish tanks and a rejected aquaculture licence petitioned for mandamus while an appeal pending with the licensing authority was unresolved. As fresh application directions had been issued, this writ petition was disposed of in terms of an earlier order dated 12.12.2023 in W.P.No.15562 of 2022.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed in terms of order in W.P.No.15562 of 2022 dated 12.12.2023; no costs; pending IAs closed.

Bondada Pullayya Vs the State of Ap — Writ and Judicial Review | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION No.2526 of 2023

¶2

ORDER:

¶3

This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the

¶4

Constitution of India seeking the following relief:-

¶5

“…. to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents in threatening to dispossess and demolish the petitioner’s fish tanks in an extent of Ac.5.93 cents in Sy.No.567-1a, 567-1b, 568-2b, 568-1a, 568-1b, 568-2a, 5671a, 567-lb of Pedanindrakolanu Village, Nidamarru Mandal, Eluru District, inspite of the pendency of the Appeal before the 2nd Respondent in No 0053/Appeal/ APSADA/2023 pursuant to the notice in Rc.No.16/2022 Dt 04.01.2023 as illegal, irregular, arbitrary, violative of the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh State Aqua Culture Development Authority (ASSADA) Act and Rules framed thereunder and also offends Articles 14, 21 and 300A of constitution of India and consequently set aside the rejection order passed by the Licensing Authority in Letter No.61819/EL/2022 Dt 30.12.2022 and grant license for cultivation of the aquaculture for the land in an extent of Ac.5.93 cents in Sy.No.567-1a, 567-1b, 568-2b, 568-1a, 568-1b, 568-2a 567-1a, 567-1b of Pedanindrakolanu Village, Nidamarru Mandal, Eluru District ….”

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Fisheries appearing for respondents.

¶7

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the issue involved in this writ petition is squarely covered by the order dated 12.12.2023, passed by this Court in W.P.No.15562 of 2022.

¶8

¶9

Learned Government Pleader does not refute the

¶10

submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶11

The relevant portion of the order, dated 12.12.2023 in W.P.No.15562 of 2022 and batch reads as follows:

¶12

“In view of the directions given by the appellate authority to the Writ Petitioners to make a fresh Application seeking license for fresh water aquaculture and also in view of the fact that the fresh application is pending for consideration before the Authority, this Court opines that no further consideration of this Court would be required.”

¶13

Having regard to the facts and circumstances, this Writ Petition is disposed of, in terms of the order passed in W.P.No.15562 of 2022, dated 12.12.2023. No order as to costs.

¶14