Adabala Veera Venkata Laxmi Satyavathi, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC18 Feb 2024WP/3881/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court closed a W.P. filed against an order declaring petitioners' applications for fish farm licenses as submitted illegally. The court found applications were already rejected for non-compliance, leaving no cause for adjudication; it freed petitioners to challenge the specific rejection orders.

What did the court decide?

Writ Petition closed; liberty granted to petitioners to challenge the rejection orders specifically.

Adabala Veera Venkata Laxmi Satyavathi, Vs The… — Service and Employment | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

\ ■

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI

¶3

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

MONDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE V.SUJATHA

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO: 3881 OF 2024

¶8

Between:

¶9

Adabala Veera Venkata Laxmi Satyavathi, W/o. Satya prasad, aged about 47 years, Occ: cultivation R/o. Sannavilli (V), Uppalaguptam (M),Dr.Br.Ambedkar Konaseema District.

¶10

Ganisetti Govindha Rajulu, S/o. Venkata Ratnam,Aged about 75 years, Occ Cultivation,R/o Sannavilli (V), Uppalaguptam (M),Dr.Br.Ambedkar^Konaseema District.

¶11

Ganisetti Satyaveni, W/o. Venkanna Naidu, Aged about 58 years, Occ: Cultivation, R/o. Sannavilli (V), Uppalaguptam (M), Dr.Br.Ambedkar Konaseema District.

¶12

...PETITIONERS

¶13

AND

¶14

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Ministry of Fisheries and Animal Husbandary Department, Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi, Amaravati.

¶15

The Licensing Authority / DLIC Committee of A.P. State Aqua Culture Development Authority., East Godavari Dist.(presently^{Dr.BRAmbedkar} Konaseema District.)

¶16

The DLIC Committee Rep. by its Chairman / District Collector, Dr. BR Ambedkar Konaseema District, Amalapuram.

¶17

The District Fisheries Officer, Dr. BR Ambedkar Konaseema District, Amalapuram.

¶18

The Fisheries Development Officer, Uppalaguptam (M), Dr. BR Ambedkar Konaseema District.

¶19

Thasildar, Uppalaguptam (M), Dr. BR Ambedkar Konaseema^District.

¶20

...RESPONDENTS

¶21

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 a Writ, Order or direction more particularly^one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to declaring the impugned speaking order in ref. no. 136/C/2023 dt.26/12/2023 of the 3'^'^ respondent/ district collector including consequential notices under Form 48 of AP SADA Rules of the 5‘^ respondent dt.26-12-2023 on the ground of not submitted the explanation in support of the claim of the petitioners as per the notices on 29-09-2023 contrary to the orders in W.P.(PIL) Nol36/2023 even though petitioners applications are pending for grant

¶22

of license for existing fresh water acqua culture dt 5-01-2024,dt.9-01-2024for 1st petitioner cultivating the land an extent of Ac. 1.72 cents in Sy No. 192/3,2,193/2,192/1, the 2"'^ petitioner is concerned an extent of Ac.0.69cents in Sy no. 188/3 and the 3rd petitioner is concerned an extent of land Ac.0.99cents in Sy no. 192/2,respectively situated at Sannavilli (V) Uppalaguptam (M) before the 2nd f^espondent, as illegal arbitrary and violative of article 14,19,21 and 300A of the constitution of india and consequentially to suspend^{theimpugnedspeaking} order in ref. no. 136/C/2023 dt.26/12/2023 of the 3"'^ respondent/ district collector including consequential notices under Form 48 of AP SADA Rules of the 5th respondent dt.26- 12-2023/not to take any co-ersive steps against the petitioner existing fresh water acqua water culture cultivation pendency of the applications dt5/01/2024, 9/01/2024 before the 2'^'^ respondent.

¶23

lA NO: 1 OF 2024

¶24

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the^{circumstancesstated} in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the impugned speaking order in ref. no. 136/C/2023 dt.26/12/2023 of the 3rd respondent/ district collector including consequential notices under Form 4 8 of AP SADA Rules of the 5th respondent dt.26-12-2023/not to take any co-ersive steps against the petitioner existing fresh water acqua^waterculture cultivation pendency of the applications dt.5/01/2024, 9/01/2024 before the 2"'^ respondent., pending disposal of the above writ petition.

¶25

Counsel for the Petitioners : SRI BOKKA SATYANARAYANA

¶26

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 5 : GP FOR AND ANIMAL HUSBANDARY

¶27

Counsel for the Respondent No.6 : GP FOR REVENUE

¶28

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶29

¶30

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI

¶31

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶32

TUESDAY ,THE TWENTIETH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶33

PRESENT

¶34

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA

¶35

WRIT PETITION NO: 3881 OF 2024

¶36

Between:

¶37

Adabala Veera Venkata Laxmi Satyavathi., W/o Satya^prasad,aged about 47 years, Occ cultivation R/o Sannavilli (V),^Uppalaguptam (M),Dr.Br.Ambedkar Konaseema Dist.

¶38

Ganisetti Govindha Rajulu,, S/o Venkata Ratnam.Aged about 75 years Occ Cultivation, R/o Sannavilli (V), Uppalaguptam (M),Dr.Br.Ambedkar Konaseema Dist.

¶39

Ganisetti Satyaveni, W/o Venkanna Naidu, Aged about^58years,Occ Cultivation, R/o Sannavilli (V), Uppalaguptam (M),^{Dr.Br.Ambedkar} Konaseema Dist

¶40

...PETITIONER(S)

¶41

AND

¶42

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal^{Secretary,Ministry} of Fisheries and Animal Husbandary Department, Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi, Amaravati.

¶43

The Licensing Authority / DLIC Committee of A P^{StateAquaCulture} Development Authority, East godavari Dist.(presently^Dr.BR Ambedkar Konaseema District.)

¶44

The DLIC Committee Rep by its Chairman / District^{Collector,Dr.BR} Ambedkar Konaseema District, Amalapuram.

¶45

The District Fisheries Officer, Dr. BR Ambedkar^{KonaseemaDistrict,} Amalapuram.

¶46

¶47

Thasildar, Uppalaguptam (M), Dr. BR Ambedkar Konaseema District.

¶48

...RESPONDENTS

¶49

r.'" sr: ■— ;? e =r,r;-E exS sbng srig"^fresh water llacqua 'Zculture"" .r"*dt 5-01-20241>2dt 'oen;^int;9-01-2024for No'1st c~ a°n' at Sajinavilli (V) Uppalaguptam (M) bLo"re the"2nd®Respdndenr'as'®legal inH I Violative of article 14.19,21 and 300A of the constitution^of no 136?c/2S2rm 2'd/12/2ol3®‘'rth '"a including consequential notices ^nde^orm dlTArSASA 5th respondent dt.26- 12-2023/not to take any co-ersive steps a^ he petitioner existing fresh water aqua water culture cultivation pendency of the applications dt5/01/2024, 9/01/2024 before the 2nd respSenrdnd

¶50

.Counsel for the Petitioner(s):SRI. BOKKA SATYANARAYANA KAMLA

¶51

Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR ANIMAL HUSBANDARY (AP)

¶52

The Court made the following;

ORDER:

This Writ Petition is filed in the year 2015, challenging the impugned speaking order of the 3 rd respondent in Ref.No.136/C/2023 dated 26.12.2023 on the ground that the petitioners have not submitted any explanation in support of their claim pursuant to the notices on 29.09.2023, despite the applications of the petitioners, for grant of license for existing fresh water aqua culture, are pending for consideration.

¶57

Today when the Writ Petition came up for hearing, learned Government Pleader for Fisheries has produced a copy^{ofinstructionsvide} Lr.No.3881/C/2024, dated 13.02.2024 received from the^{DistrictFisheries} Officer (i/c), Dr.BR.Ambedkar Konaseema District, Amalapauram,^wherein it is stated that the applications submitted by the petitioners for regularization and granting Licenses under the provisions as per APSADA^Act2020and Rules framed therein were already rejected by the Mandal^{andDistrictLevel} implementation Committee through online process due to non compliance of the premasters/guidelines prescribed under APSADA Act^2020andRules made there under. Accordingly, the applications of^the 1®' and 2 nd petitioners were rejected on 07.01.2024 and the 3'^^ petitioner’s application was rejected on 15.01.2024.

¶58

¶59

¶60

Therefore, in view of the above instructions as the applications of the petitioners were already rejected, this court is of the opinion that the cause in the Writ Petition does not survive for further adjudication.

¶61

Accordingiy, the Writ Petition is closed giving liberty to the petitiohers to challenge the rejection orders passed by the respohdent authorities, . No costs.

¶62

Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in this Writ Petition

¶63

shall stand closed.

¶64

Sd/- P. VINOD KUMAR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR 4ecti(^n^fficer

¶65

//TRUE COPY//

¶66

To,

¶67

2 Two Satyanarayana, Advocate [OPUCJ [OUT? Husbandary, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. 4.' c^pte'r [OUT]

4.' c^pte'r Cnr gl

HIGH COURT

DATED:19/02/2024

ORDER

WP.No.3881 of 2024

^of ANDTjq
iP
5 12 MAS 202A m
^ Current

¶75

CLOSING THE W.P. WITHOUT COSTS

Adabala Veera Venkata Laxmi Satyavathi, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Adabala Veera Venkata Laxmi Satyavathi, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S. N.C.H. Pulla Rao Vs Sri Pradyumna, I.A.S.

Gundapaneni Naga Venkata Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Aster Agri Innovations Vs the State of Ap

Private Recognized Aided Schools Management Association Vs State of A.P.

M/S Vasavi Agros Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Dadenaboina Ankalaiah Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh