The High Court · 2025

Petition Under Sectron 151 CPC praying that in the cir<:unstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the Order dated 05/08/2025 passed in W.P.No 612.2 of 2025, in the interest of justice. Counsel for Appellant : SRI VEDULA SRINIVAS, LEARNED SENIOR COUNSEL REPRESENTING SRI MIRZA AZHARULLA BAIG Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3 : GP FOR FISHERIE:i Counsel for the Respondent Nos.4 to 6 : GP FOR REVENUT: Counsel for the Respondent No.7 : SRI T.VASANTH RAO The Court made the following ORDER THE HON'BLE SRI WSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VAKITI RAMAKRISHNA REDDY WRIT APPEAL No.946 OF 2o25 JUDGMENT k)er the Hon'ble Sn Justice Abhina d. Kumdr Shaull Aggrieved by the order dated 05.08.2025 passed in W.P.No.6122 of 2025 by the learned Single Judge, this writ appeal is hled by the appellant.

2. Heard Sri Vedula Srinivas. learned Senior Counsel representing Mr. Mirza Azhattlla Baig, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, learned Government Pleader for Fisheries appearing for respondent Nos. 1 to 3, learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondent Nos.4 to 6 and Sri T. Vasanth Rao, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent No.7.

3. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant- Society had contended tllat the Boda-Banda Reservoir, which is situated adjacent to Vardarajpur and Dharmaram Villages, was developed by acquiring the lands to an extent 2 -I of Acs.32.10 gts., from Vardarajpur Village anrl an extent of Acs.53.20 gts.. from Dharmaram Village.'lhe official respondents have granted fishing rights t:r respondent No. 7-Fishermen Co-operative Society, Dharrrraram Village, ignoring the case of the appellant-Fishermerr ()o-operative Society, Vardarajpur Village. Hence, the appellant-Society had submitted detailed representations orr 24.Ot.2025, O3.O2.2O25 and 15.02.2025 to the officia. respondents requesting them to permit the appellant-Soci,:ty for fishing rights, as their lands have also been acquired for developing the Reservoir. When the ofhcial respondents were not considering the said represetrtations, the appellant-Society approached this Court by filing W.P.No.6122 of 2025 seeking to direc: the official respondents to consider the representations which are pending before them. Without appreciatir:q any of the contentions raised by the appellant-Society, learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition, instead oI clisposing the writ petition by directing the ofhcial rr spondents to J consider the said representations and pass appropriate orders.

4. Learned Senior Counsel had further contended that the representations submitted by the appellant-Society are still pending and therefore, appropriate orders be passed in the writ appeal by setting aside the order passed by the learned Single Judge and directing the ofhcial respondents to consider the representations dated 24.O1.2025, O3.O2.2O25 and 15.02.2025.

5. Learned Government Pleader appearing for the official respondents had contended that the representations submitted by the appellant-Societlr are still pending with the ofhcial respondents and if a direction is issued to the offrcial respondents to consider the said representations, they would consider the same and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.

6. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent No.7 had submitted that before the official respondents 4 passing any orders, let respondent No.7 a-lso l.re heard and thereafter, let the ofhcial respondents pass appropriate - orders, in accordance with law.

7. This Court, having considered the rival submissions made by both the parties, is of the vie,"r, that as the appellant-Society was only seeking to ,.,onsider the representations which are pending before the ofltcial respondents, learned Single Judge was nol. justified 1n dismissing the writ petition. Therefore, erLds of justice would be met if a direction is issued tt, the ofhcial respondents to consider the representations which are pending before them.

8. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal 1S dis,posed of by directing the offrcial respondents to r:onsider the representations dated 24.O7.2025, 03.O2.2025 and

15.O2.2025 submitted by the appellalt-Siociety. It is needless to sa)' that before passing any order-s on the said representations, the ofhcial respondents ,,rhall give an To 5 opportunity of hearing to respondent No.7. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPYII D/. MOHD. ISMAIL UTY REGISTRAR ECTION OFFICER 3 at, State of

1. The Principal Secreta ry, Fisheries Department Secr 2 Telangana at Hyderaba d The Commissio ner of Fisheries, State of Telan gana, Matsya Bhavan , 4th Lane, Shanthin agar, Masab Tank Hyderab ad - 500028 The District Fis heries Officer, Sid dipet District, District IOC Building at Dudded a - 502277 4' The District corector siddipet District, Siddipet District at Duddeda - 502277. 5. TheTahasitdar, Markook r,,lbnoii, diJiip"j ri"ilili_ so227s. 6. The Tahasirdar, Jasadevpw M;;;;i, SiEiip-"ioiliri"t _ so22l1. 7. The president, Fishierman c"_ "p"ir'tr" sIJiLiv, ihego.tJo.209/3/.1989), Dharmaram virraoe. Jagdevpr, fiino-rrls-iiiiiJt bi.tri"t, ponnara Ramuru S/o Lakshmaiah, ao"tr ,"Lrs-F/o Hn;;f3;, ;ii"?;ram vi'ase, Jagdevpur - Mandat, Siddip6t District _ SO22B1. t ly;fr?.r::,frio* FISHERIES, Hish court ror the State or retansana at 9. Two CCs to bp fbn Rfve UUE, High Court for the State of Tetangana at 10.One CC to SRt T.VASANTH.RAO, Advocate (OPUC) 1 1. One CC to SRt MTRZA AZHARULLA EiAiC,;!"ro."rt" 1oeucl 12.Tvto CD Copies Hyderabad. [OUTI SA PVL ./ \r l' S, r^lT 6 a1 | .)- i:l 2 r s \.? EP trfi -1.'.'' HIGH COURT DATED:2910812025 JUDGMENT WA.No.946 of 2025 DISPOSING OF THE W.A WITHOUT COSTS.