IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARA (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF FEBRUAR TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR'rAS" WRIT PETITION NO: 20278 OF 2024 Oft ?> Between: Yalamanchih Sri Chaitanya Dev, aged 53 years, Male, Occupation Agriculture, S/o. Mahesh Chandra Chowdary (Late), Navya Enclave Flat No.204, Ashoknagar, Eluru. Eluru District. ...Petitioner AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary, (Animal Husbandry, Dairy Development and Fisheries Department) A P Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District. The District Level Committee for Registration of Aquaculture Eluru District Rep. by its Chairman-cum-District Collector, Eluru, El’uru District. The District Fisheries Officer, Govt, of A.P. Postal Colony, Srinivasa Nagar, Eluru, Eluru District. Fisheries Development Officer, Pedapadu, Pedapadu (M) Eluru District. Tahsildar, Pedapadu (M), Pedapadu (V), Eluru District. Gundapaneni Venkata Krishna Rao, S/o. Late Basava Sobhanadri Male, aged 65 years. Occupation Cultivation, Koniki (V), Pedapadu (M) Eluru District. ...Respondents Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, order or direction more particularly m the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of Respondents in rejected the petitioner's Fish tank license for an extent of Ac.4.50 cents in R.S.N0.292/IB .situated in Koniki (V), Pedapadu (M), Eluru District on the ground of Civil dispute in between the Petitioner and 6th Respondent vide 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. may Rejected orders on 10/8/2024 and 11-8-2024.Even though there is no stay granted in O.S.No.313/2024 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge Court, Eluru, West Godavari District without passing any orders by the 2nd respondent and without assigning any reasons as highly illegal, arbitrary and contrary to law and clear violation of Principles of Natural Justice and clear violation of Articles 14,21 and 300A of the Constitution of India and consequently to direct the Respondents to set aside the rejected orders dated 10/8/2024 and 11-8-202,1 and direct the respondents to grant fish tank licence for an extent of Ac.4.50 cents in R.S.No.292/1B situated in Koniki (V), Pedapadu (M), Eluru District within Aquaculture zone and 99.50percent lands converted into fish tanks as per Govt, of Andhra Pradesh statics in Koniki (V), Pedapadu (M), Eluru District. lA NO: 1 OF 2024 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 the Respondents to grant Fish tank license for an extent of Ac.4.50 cents in R.S.No.292/1B, situated in Koniki (V), Pedapadu (M), Eluru District by suspending rejected orders dt. 10-8-2024 and 11-8-2024 pending disposal of the above writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI^B,I? RAJU Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR FISHERIES The Court made the following order: THE HON’BLE SRUUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION No. 20278 of 2024 ORDER: The present petitioner herein made an application to grant fish tank license and said application was rejected vide order dated 10.08.2024 and 11.08.2024 on the ground of civil disputes between the petitioner and respondent. The said order was assailed in the present Writ Petition on the ground that the rejection order is in contrary to the Andhra Pradesh State Aquaculture Development Authority Act, 2020. (for short the ‘Act’). And it is the specific contention of the Writ Petitioner that a particular procedure is contemplated under the Andhra Pradesh State Aquaculture development Rules (for short Rules). The fisheries department has to deliver an order under Form - 23 under Rule 12 of Rules, but as seen from the impugned order, the order was not delivered under Form-No.23, hence, prayed to set aside the impugned order. Learned counsel appearing for the 6'^ respondent would submit that under the Act, an appeal is provided under Section 35 and also stated that the petitioner has not made out any ground to invoke jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Hence, prayed 2. to dismiss the Writ Petition. 2 Fisheries Department also filed its Counter affidavit asserting that the averments made in the Writ Affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition are false and that the impugned order was not supported by any reasons is also false and further asserted that respondent after giving opportunity of submitting the version of the petitioner and the 6 respondent, after considering the detailed endorsement issued by the 5 respondent i.e. Tahsildar, Pedapadu Mandal, Eluru District, vide ROC No.25/2024(D.T.), dated 30.01.2024, the impugned order was passed containing the reasons and the petitioner’s application was rejected on the ground that there is a civil dispute on the subject land with the adjacent farmer and the Tahsildar had issued endorsement dated 30.01.2024, stating that both the petitioner and the respondent are having documents and the land is a patta land and there is a civil dispute between the parties, and directed the 6‘^ respondent to settle the civil dispute through a Court of law. 3. th th 4. It is well settled principle that where a right or liability is created by a statute which gives a special remedy for enforcing it, the remedy provided by that statute only must be availed of. In that view of the above discussion, this Court is of opinion that the instant writ petition is not entertain-able and is liable to be dismissed on the ground of availability of an alternative, efficacious statutory remedy, being available N 3 % to the petitioners under Section 35 of Andhra Pradesh Aquaculture Development Authority Act, 2020. 5. Further the petitioner must explain the prejudice which caused to him merely not delivering in the particular form, it does not ipso facto vitiate the proceedings and prejudice occasioned by such defect must be established by the petitioner, however, petitioner is not able establish the prejudice occasioned to him. was 6. Without delving into the case's merits, the writ petition is disposed with a direction to the 3'^^ respondent to issue the identical order described in Form-23, in accordance with Rule 12 of Andhra Pradesh State Aquaculture Development Rules. There shall be no order as to as costs. As a sequel thereto, interlocutory applications pending, if any, in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed 7. Sd/- K TATA RAO deputyregistrar It' ^ SECTION OFFICER 1. The Principal Secretary, (Animal Husbandry, Dairy Development ana Fisheries Department), State of Andhra Pradesh, A.P. Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District. 2. The Chairman-cum-District Collector, District Level Committee for Registration of Aquaculture, Eluru District Eluru, Eluru District. 3. The District Fisheries Officer, Govt, of A.P. Postal Colony, Srinivasa Nagar, Eluru, Eluru District. 4. The Fisheries Development Officer, Pedapadu, Pedapadu (M), Eluru District. 5. The Tahsildar, Pedapadu (M), Pedapadu (V), Eluru District. 6. One CC to Sri B P Raju, Advocate [OPUC] 7. Two CCs to GP for Fisheries, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] 8. Two CD Copies //TRUE COPY// To RAM HIGH COURT DATED:04/02/2025 §f r ORDER X 0 5 MAR 2075 Current Section ml Co WP.No.20278 of 2024 DISPOSING OF THE WP WITHOUT COSTS