APHC010930342018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA WRIT PETITION No.45211 OF 2018 Between: Jai Bheem Sankshema Sangam, Regd.No.538/2016, Rep. by President, M.Ratnaiah, S/o.Krishna Murthy, Aged 38 years, R/o.Komatilanka Village, Eluru Mandal, West Godavari District, A.P. ...Petitioner AND 1. State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh, and others. ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner : Mr.A.Rajendra Babu Counsel for the Respondents: G.P. for Home G.P. for Revenue G.P. for Fisheries The Court made the following ORDER: Heard Mr.A.Rajendra Babu, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr.K.Arjun Chowdary, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue representing respondent Nos.1 to 4, and Ms.M.Sandhya Deepthi, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Fisheries representing respondent No.6. 2. Notice taken out by the learned counsel for the petitioner on respondent No.7 is returned with an endorsement <un-claimed=, hence 2 WP_45211_2018 the notice is deemed to have been served. None entered appearance on behalf of respondent No.7. 3. The grievance of the petitioner as set out in paragraph No.2 of the writ affidavit is inaction of respondent Nos.2 to 4 and 6 in taking action against respondent No.7 and his followers for digging fish tanks and doing pisciculture in Government lands to an extent of Acs.35.39 cents situated in Survey Nos.18, 19, 21, 30, 31, 34, 35, 38 of Kamatilanka Village, Eluru Mandal, West Godavari District, in spite of receiving representation of violating Section 145 Cr.P.C., proceedings issued by respondent No.4 and not taking action on the representations of dismantling illegal fish tanks. 4. Though the learned counsel for petitioner sought to advance arguments with reference to the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, considering the nature of the grievance and in the light of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner made representation dated 14.11.2025 to the respondent No.2, instead of examining the matter further, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition, providing that the respondent No.2 shall take necessary action on the representation dated 14.11.2025 strictly in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, within a period of six (6) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 5. With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. ____________________ NINALA JAYASURYA,J November 19, 2025. vasu