1 Pallela Ramarao v. The District Collector, Visakhapatnam
Case at a glance
Outcome
Disposed of
Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India arts. 14, 226
- Water Trees Act
Judgment
Cause title
Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a Writ, order or direction in the nature, of mandamus declaring the inaction of the 1st respondent in not passing any orders on the representation of the petitioner dated 24-5-2005 and the legal notice dated 27-5-2005 as regards digging of a bore- well to a depth of 100 ft. under Rural Water Scheme near Mango Garden on the Jami Canal Surrounding Gokulapadu Bheemavaram and somudevupaly of S. Rayavaram Madnal Visakhapatnam District as being illegal, unjust arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 of the constitution of India and the provisions of Water Trees Act of 2002 and pass such other order or orders in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.E.V.BHAGIRATHA RAO Counsel for the Respondents 1 and 2: GP FOR REVENUE The Court at the stage of admission made the following :
ORDER:
Operative part
Heard both sides. In this Writ Petition, petitioners are seeking a Writ of Mandamus, declaring the inaction of the first respondent in not passing any orders on the representations of the petitioners dated 24.5.2005 and the legal notice dated 27.5.2005 as regards digging of a bore-well to a depth of 100 ft. under Rural Water Scheme near Mango Garden on the Jami Canal Surrounding Gokulapadu Bheemavaram and Samudevupally of S.Rayavaram Mandal, Visakahaptanam District, as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and the provisions of Water Trees Act of 2002. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are small and marginal formers. They are depending upon the rainwater and are cultivating dry land by digging bore-wells to a depth of 50ft. While so, at the behest of the 4th respondent, who is the Sarpanch of Thimmapuram Gram Panchayat, the third respondent has deputed his men on 24.5.2005 to dig a bore-well for a depth of nearly 100 ft at the Mango Garden near Jami Canal under Rural Water Scheme. Petitioners and other Villagers have protested the action and they sent representations on 24.5.2005 to all the respondents explaining their difficulty. But no action has been taken so far on the representation filed by the petitioners. Hence, the present Writ Petition. Considering the facts and circumstances, without going into the merits of the case, I deem it appropriate to direct the respondents to dispose of the representation of the petitioners dated 24.5.2005, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order after affording an opportunity to the petitioners, in accordance with law. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. ______________________ E. DHARMA RAO, J DATED: 14/06/2005 To 1 The District Collector, Visakhapatnam 2 The Mandal Revenue Officer, S. Rayavaram Mandal, S. Rayavaram Post Visakhapatnam district 3 The Sarpanch, Thimmapuram Gram Panchayat, S. Rayavaram Mandal, Visakhapatnam district 4 The Sarpanch, Thimmapuram Gram Panchayat, S. Rayvaram Mandal, Visakhapatnam district
Two CCs to G.P. for Revenue, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad (OUT) Two CD copies.
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — arts. 14, 226; Water Trees Act.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Andhra Pradesh High Court, on 24 May 2005. The bench was ELIPE DHARMA RAO.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.