Dismissed

Potru Ram Prasad v. the State of Ap

Andhra Pradesh HC15 Sept 2026WP/12351/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner challenged the inaction of authorities in allowing respondent No.7 to convert agricultural land into shrimp ponds without permission. Respondent No.7 produced a valid licence dated 25.06.2026 for freshwater aquaculture, and the land was identified as an aqua zone. The court found no further orders necessary and closed the writ petition.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition closed; no order as to costs; pending miscellaneous petitions closed.

Potru Ram Prasad Vs the State of Ap — Environment and Pollution | Andhra Pradesh HC (2026)

¶1

[3457]

¶2

APHC010237412026

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 16^th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 12351/2026

¶7

Between:

¶8

POTRU RAM PRASAD, S/O. P. NAGAMUNI, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, DO.NO. 2- 4/1, AMARAVATHI VILLAGE, KALIDINDI MANDAL, ELURU DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH - 521 344

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

THE STATE OF AP, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY ANIMAL HUSBANDRY AND FISHERIES DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT - 522238.

¶12

THE COMMISSIONER OF FISHERIES GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, VIJAYAWADA, NTR DISTRICT - 521137.

¶13

THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ELURU, ELURU DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH - 534006

¶14

THE DISTRICT FISHERIES OFFICER ELURU, ELURU DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH - 534006.

¶15

THE THASILDAR, KALIDINDI MANDAL, ELURU DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH - 534006.

¶16

THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, KALIDINDI POLICE STATION, ELURU DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH - 534006.

¶17

IBBA KANAKAIAH, S/O. VENKATESU, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, DO.NO.T- 3/23, AMARAVATHI VILLAGE, KALIDINDI MANDAL, ELURU DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH - 521 344.

¶18

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶19

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 topleased to issue a Writ Order or direction Particularly, one in the nature of writ of Mandamus , declaring the respondent authorities to take appropriate action against the illegal and unauthorized shrimp ponds situated at Nos. 27/1, 27/2, 27/3, 27/5, and 27/6 to the extent of 0.91 in Amaravathi Village, Kalidindi Mandal, Eluru District, which are being developed by 7th respondent without obtaining necessary permission from the authorities for converting agricultural land into shrimp (aquaculture) ponds, is illegal, arbitrary and in violation of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and in violation of the Andhra Pradesh State Aquaculture Development Authority Act, 2020, G.O.Ms.No.7, dated 16.03.2013, G.O.Ms.No. 15, dated 26.05.2015 and as amended by G.O. Ms. No. 32 Animal Husbandry Dairy Development and Fisheries Department dated. 25.10.2017 and consequently,

¶20

¶21

direct the Respondent No.7 not to undertake any aquaculture activities without obtaining the requisite permissions as mandated under G.O.Ms.No.7, dated 16.03.2023, issued by the Department of Fisheries, and in accordance with the provisions of the AP SADA Act,2020 and to pass

¶22

IA NO: 1 OF 2026

¶23

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to stay the operation of illegal excavation of fish tank and conduct of aquaculture activities by Respondent No.7 pending disposal of the above writ petition and to pass

¶24

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶25

1.RAJANI NELAKUDITI

¶26

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶27

1.GP FOR ANIMAL HUSBANDARY

¶28

2.GP FOR HOME

¶29

3.GP FOR REVENUE

¶30

4.B NANCHARAIAH NAIDU

¶31

The Court made the following:

¶32

¶33

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION No.12351 of 2026

¶34

ORDER:

¶35

The present writ petition is filed by the petitioner challenging the inaction on the part of the respondent authorities in permitting respondent No.7 to convert the agricultural land into shrimp ponds.

¶36

Respondent No.7 has filed a counter-affidavit stating that the subject property has now been identified as an aqua zone and that the competent authority has granted permission to respondent No.7 for raising a fresh water aquaculture farm. The licence dated 25.06.2026 issued in favour of respondent No.7 has also been placed on record.

¶37

Considering the submissions made and the fact that respondent No.7 is conducting aquaculture under a valid licence issued by the competent authority, no further orders are required in the present writ petition.

¶38

Accordingly, the writ petition is closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶39

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

¶40

Dated 16.09.2026 KGM Whether the order is:		____________________ JUSTICE HARINATH.N
Speaking	Reasoned	`☑`
Reportable	Non-reportable	`☑`

¶41

¶42

186

¶43

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N

¶44

WRIT PETITION No.12351 of 2026 Dated 16.09.2026

¶45

KGM

Potru Ram Prasad v. the State of Ap

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Potru Ram Prasad v. the State of Ap

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