Allowed

Dr. Ravula Jagadeeshwar Prasad v. The State of Telangana and 5 Others

Telangana HC3 Mar 2022WP/1902/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging non-implementation of a 1964 Government Order regarding fishing communities. The High Court directed the Animal Husbandry Department to examine a 2019 proposal for community inclusion and dispose of it within two months, allowing the writ petition to close.

What did the court decide?

Directed Respondent No. 3 to examine the proposal dated 23.11.2019 and pass orders strictly bearing regulations within two months.

Dr. Ravula Jagadeeshwar Prasad Vs The State of… — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE^{OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD} (SPecial Original Jurisdiction)

¶2

THURSDAY, THE THIRD^{DAY OF MARCH} TWO THOUSAND AND^{TWENTY TWO}

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON,BLE DT. JUSTICE^{SHAMEEMAKTHER}

¶5

WRIT P ET|TION NO: 1902 OF²⁰²⁰

¶6

Between:

¶7

Dr. Ravula Jagadeeshwar^{Prasad, S/o Govardhan, agedah-out 5-2^y-ears,Occ'} Vice Presideni, Telangana^{State Mudiraj Mahasabha, R/o5-1 1-585' Srinagar} Colony, Road' No.4,- Opp.^{KUSBHEiank,Vidyaranyapuri,Hanamkonda,} Warangal District, Telangana State.

¶8

,..PETITIONER

¶9

AND

¶10

1 The State of Telangana,^{Rep by Chief Secretary Secretariat, Hyderabad'} Telangana.

¶11

2 The State of Telangana,^Rep by^{its Principal Secretary Department of} lrrigatron and CAD Secretariat,^{Hyderabad, Telangana.}

¶12

3 The State of Telangana.^{Rep by its PrincipalSecre-taryAnimalHusbandry.} Dairy Developmenf and^{FisheriesDepartment, Secretarrat.Hyderabad} Telangana.

¶13

4 The State of Telangana,^{Rep by its Principal Secretary Department of} Revenue, Secretariat,^{Hyderabad, Telangana.}

¶14

¶15

The Commissioner Fisheries,^{Shanthi Nagar, Hyderabad, Telangana'}

¶16

6 The General Manager,^{TelanganaState FishermencooperativeSociety} Ltd.(TSFCOF), Shanti^{Nagar, Hyderabad.}

¶17

...RESPONDENTS

¶18

Petition under Article 226 of^{lhe constitutionof lndiapraying that in the} circumstances stated in^{the affidavitfiled therewith, the High court maybe} pleased to issue an appropriate writ,^{orderor direction more particularly one in} the nature of writ^{of Mandamus declaring the actionof the Respondents in not} foilowing the G.O.Ms.No.98^{dated2210111964as arbitrary, illegal and contraryto} law and consequently direct^{the respondents not to add any othercommunities} other than mentioned^{in the G.O.Ms.No 98 dated 2210111964}

¶19

lA NO: 1 OF 2020

¶20

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 to direct lhe respondents to rmplement the G.O.t,4s.No.98 dated 2210111964. pending disposal of the main writ petition.

¶21

lA NO: 2 OF 2020

¶22

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances staled in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 1210812020 while amending the G.O.l,4s.No.98 dated 2210111964.

¶23

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI D. L. PANDU

¶24

Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR GENERAL ADMINISTRATION

¶25

Counsel for the Respondent No.2: cP FOR IRRIGATION AND

¶26

COMMAND AREA DEVELOPMENT

¶27

Counsel for the Respondent No.3: GP FOR ANIMAL HUSBANDRY

¶28

Counsel for the Respondent No.4: GP FOR REVENUE

¶29

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.5 & 6: SRI M. VEERA SWAMY,

¶30

S.C. FOR FISHERMEN CO.OPERATIVE SOCIETY

¶31

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶32

THE HON'BLE DT. JUSTICE SHAMEEM^AKTHER

¶33

WRIT PETITION o.1902 OF 2020

¶34

ORDER:

¶35

This Writ Petition is filed by the^{petitioner seeking a Writ of} Mandamus to declare the inactlon of^{respondents in following} G.O.Ms,No.98, dated 22,01.1964, as^{illegal and arbitrary and} consequently, to direct^{the respondentsnot to add any other} communities other than^{those mentioned in the saidG.O.}

¶36

Heard the learned counsel for both^{sides and perusedthe} record.

¶37

Learned counsel for the^{petitioner would submit that though} several requests were^{made by the petitioner and his community} people to the respondents to implement^{G.O.f4s.No.9B,dated} 22.01.7964, the same^{was not acceded to and ultimately, prayed to} direct the respondents to^{implementthe said G.O., strictly.}

¶38

4 Counter is filed by^{respondent No'5, whereinat page No.3, it is} stated as follows:

¶39

"lt is to further submit that the^petitioner in^{present wi'it} claiming/seeking direction^{from the Hon'ble High Court not to} include or extend any^{benefits pertainingto the GO Ms No'98} Revenue Department^{Dt.22-OL-t964toother than listed} communlties. As^{petitionerrespectably seeking the above} cited^prayer but^{however petitioner himselfbelongingto the} other than Iisted communicates^{enshrined in G.O Ms No'98} Revenue Department d1.22-07-I964.^{But in implementation} the respondents strictly^{adhered and implementingin its truth}

¶40

l)i \ .1 \ l, \1, torr. (,, lIl,^r

¶41

and spirit and there are several writ petitions filed before this Hon'ble High Court seeking the membership in fishermen cooperative societies scattered throughout Telangana State and the Hon'ble High Court also dismissed so many WPs on the above grounds stating that the Mudiraj Community also does not falls under the G.O Ms No.98 Revenue Department dt. 2201-1964. However, proposals weTe submitted to the Government vide Commissioner of Fisheries Lr. No.3514/E2/20L9 Dt:23.11.2019 for inclusion of Mudiraj, Tenugollu and Mutrasi communities in the list of eligible fishing communities. Orders in this regard are awaited."

¶42

5, As seen from the counter filed by respondent No.5 and the submissions made on behalf of the respondents, proposa I was sent by respondent No.5 to respondent No.3 vide 1r.No.3514/E2/2019, dated 23,11.2079, for inclusion of Mudiraj, Tenugoilu and Mutrasi communities in the list of eligible fishing communities. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that no action has been taken so far by the respondent No.3 on the said proposal, dated 23,11.2019, and sought a direction for disposai of the said proposal, in accordance with the governing G.Os. There is no objection by the other side for examination and disposal of the proposal, dated 23.r7 .20t9 ,

¶43

Under these circumstances, the respondent No.3 is directed to examine the proposal, dated 23.11.2019, of the respondent No.5 and pass orders in accordance with the governing regulations,

¶44

Dr.SA,J W.P.No.l902 of 2020

¶45

¶46

expeditiously, preferably within a period of two (2) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶47