Dismissed

Bathuva-I Water Users Association (Borapothuvani Cheruvu) v. District Collector, (Panchayat Raj)

Telangana HC22 Mar 2011WP/7467/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition challenging the vacation of a stay order without natural justice was dismissed because the authority lacked jurisdiction to decide the fishery rights dispute. The court held such orders are non-est and not amenable to writ jurisdiction.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; liberty to approach competent authority for rights over the tank.

Bathuva-I Water Users Association… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Telangana HC (2011)

¶1

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY W.P.No.7467 of 2011 Date : 22-3-2011

¶2

Between : Bathuva-1 Water Users Association (Borapothuvani Cheruvu), Bathuva (v), G.Sigadam (M), Srikakulam District Represented by its President Thanubudhi Simhachalam .. Petitioner And District Collector, Srikakulam and others .. Respondents

¶3

Counsel for petitioner : Jithender Rao Veeramalla Counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3 : AGP for Panchayat Raj Counsel for respondent Nos.4 & 5 : Sri G.Elisha

¶4

The Court made the following :

¶5

ORDER:

¶6

This Writ Petition is filed for a mandamus to set-aside letter No.91/09/B dated 9-3-2011 of respondent No.3.

¶7

I have heard Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj representing respondent No.4.

¶8

The petitioner and respondent No.4 are engaged in a dispute pertaining to fishery rights in a tank called Borapothuvani Cheruvu. When respondent No.4 sought to auction the fishery rights over the said tank, the petitioner approached respondent No.3. By order dated 18-22011, he has granted stay of exercise of fishery rights by respondent No.4. However, by the impugned order, the said stay has been vacated. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order vacating his earlier order by respondent No.3 without giving an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner is in violation of principles of natural justice. To the court’s query, the learned counsel stated that there is no statutory provision or executive instructions which vested respondent No.3 with the power to resolve the dispute between the petitioner and respondent No.4 over fishery rights in a public tank. Unless jurisdiction to decide such a dispute is vested with respondent No.3, he is not expected to entertain the petitioner’s representation in the

¶9

first place. If an authority which acted without jurisdiction has passed any order, such an order is nonest in the eye of law. The order granting stay in favour of the petitioner in the first instance is as much without jurisdiction as the order vacating the stay by respondent No.3. Therefore, the legality or validity of the action of respondent No.3 in passing such orders is not amenable to writ jurisdiction of this court and no mandamus can be issued with respect to such orders.

¶10

On the premises as above, the Writ Petition is dismissed, with liberty to the petitioner to assert its right over the tank in question by approaching the competent authority.

¶11

As a sequel to dismissal of the Writ Petition, WPMP No.9285/2011 is disposed of as infructuous.

¶12

____________________ C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy.,J

¶13

Date : 22-3-2011

¶14

Bathuva-I Water Users Association (Borapothuvani Cheruvu) v. District Collector, (Panchayat Raj)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bathuva-I Water Users Association (Borapothuvani Cheruvu) v. District Collector, (Panchayat Raj)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

P.Srihari Rao, Vs The Government of A.P.

Tallapudi Joga Rao, Vs The District Collector

D. Govind Vs The District Collector

G. Vanaja Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Principal

Northern Power Distribution Corporation Electrical and Vs The Northern Power Distribution Company Limited

smt. Nilofer Fatima Vs The Central Power Distribution Company of Andhra Pradesh