APHC010552002025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3327] TUESDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SREENIVASA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO: 28987/2025 Between: 1. KANUPARTHI RAJYA LAKSHMI, W/O. KANUPARTHI RADHA KRISHNAIAH, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/O.NELLORE, NELLORE URBAN MANDAL, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT. 2. KANUPARTHI HARI KRISHNA, S/O. KANUPARTHI RADHA KRISHNAIAH, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/O.NELLORE, NELLORE URBAN MANDAL, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT. 3. SRAVANI KANUPARTHI, W/O.SUNEEL KUMAR KUNANI, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, R/O.NELLORE, NELLORE URBAN MANDAL, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF AP, ANIMAL HUSBANDRY, DAIRY DEVELOPMENT AND FISHERIES DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT, NELLORE. 3. THE JOINT DIRECTOR OF FISHERIES, NEAR RTA OFFICE, BY- PASS ROAD, NELLORE, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT. 4. THE TAHSILDAR, VIDAVALUR MANDAL, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT. 5. BANDILA MADHU, S/O. JAYA RAJU, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/O. MUDIVARTHI VILLAGE, VIDAVALUR MANDAL, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): 2 Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. C SUBODH Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR ANIMAL HUSBANDARY 2. GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: 3 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SREENIVASA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO: 29215 of 2025 ORDER: - The present Writ Petition is filed seeking the following relief: - “It is prayed that this Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ more in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in insisting the petitioner to close the aquacultural farms in an extent of 5.7 Hectors in Sy.No.117, 120, 114-A and 1G2-3B, 107, 106-F, 106-D and 106-E, 68, 22-2 and 70, 110-A, 110-B, 118-1, 119-A and 108, 116, 115 situated at Mudivarti Revenue Village, Vidavalur Mandal, SPSR Nellore District as illegal, arbitrary, one without jurisdiction and violation of Andhra Pradesh Aquaculture Development Authority Rules, 2020 and consequently, direct the respondents not to interfere with the petitioners aqua cultural operations in respect of aforesaid lands.” 2. Case of the petitioners is that they are carrying on shrimp (Litopenaeus Vannamei) culture with valid permissions granted by the competent authorities. They hold the following licenses: (i) License No.AQNLBWNE028106, dated 30.12.2021, for an extent of Ac.0.94 cents in Sy.Nos.117, 120, 114-A, and 102-3B; (ii) License No.AQNLBWNE028106, dated 30.12.2021, for an extent of Ac.0.46 cents in Sy.Nos.107, 106-F, 106-D, and 106-E; (iii) License No.AQNLBWNE029039, dated 12.01.2022, for an extent of Ac.2.02 cents in Sy. Nos. 68, 22-2, and 70; (iv) License No.AQNLBWNE029040, dated 05.01.2022, for an extent of Ac.1.47 cents in Sy.Nos.110-A, 110-B, 118- 1, 119-A, and 108; and (v) License No.AQNLBWNE028107, dated 24.12.2021, for an extent of Ac.0.81 cents in Sy.Nos.116 and 115, all 4 situated at Mudivarti Revenue Village, Vidavalur Mandal, SPSR Nellore District. All the aforesaid licenses are valid and in force. 3. While the petitioners were carrying on aquaculture operations as per norms, 5th respondent made a complaint on 20.05.2025 before the respondent authorities alleging that the aquaculture activities of the petitioners were affecting his crop cultivation. Acting upon the said complaint, the respondent authorities instructed the petitioners to provide a drainage canal for the discharge of effluents from the aquaculture ponds. In compliance with the said directions, the petitioners laid a proper drainage canal connected to their aquaculture farms. 4. Subsequently, 5th respondent addressed a letter to the authorities stating that, pursuant to the action taken by the petitioners in laying the drainage canal, his crops were no longer affected, and that he had no further grievance against the petitioners in carrying on their aquaculture activities. 5. Learned Assistant Government Pleader, on written instructions, submits that respondent authorities are not interfering with the day-to-day affairs of the petitioners’ aquaculture farms. It is further submitted that 5th respondent has not lodged any complaint with respondent Nos.1 to 3 as against the petitioners, and that at no point of time, did respondent Nos.1 5 to 3 instigate, direct or otherwise involve themselves in demanding closure of the petitioners’ aquaculture farms. 6. Accordingly, recording the same, the Writ Petition stands closed. Miscellaneous petitions, pending, if any, shall stand closed. _______________________ K. SREENIVASA REDDY, J. Date:28.10.2025 ARB 6 198 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SREENIVASA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO: 28987 of 2025 28.10.2025 ARB