APHC010117112026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH FRIDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 6568/2026 Between: 1. BUNGA MARIYA DASU, S/O. B. VEERA SWAMY, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, OCC SECRETARY OF SRI RATNA FISHERMAN SOCIETY, H.NO. 33, ILAPARRU, NANDIVADA MANDAL, KRISHNA DISTRICT 521321 1. THE STATE OF AP, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL GOVERNMENT, PANCHAYAT RAJ AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT 2. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, SECRETAR GUNTUR DISTRICT 3. THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF LAND ADMINISTRATION, MANGALAGIRI, GUNTUR DISTRICT 4. THE COMMISSIONER, PANCHAYAT RAJ AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT PRADESH, TADEPALLI, GUNTUR DISTRICT 5. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KRISHNA DISTRICT AT MACHILIPATNA.M IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 6568/2026 BUNGA MARIYA DASU, S/O. B. VEERA SWAMY, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, OCC SECRETARY OF SRI RATNA FISHERMAN SOCIETY, H.NO. 33, ILAPARRU, NANDIVADA MANDAL, KRISHNA DISTRICT ...PETITIONER AND THE STATE OF AP, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, PANCHAYAT RAJ AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT - 522237. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT - 522237. THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF LAND ADMINISTRATION, MANGALAGIRI, GUNTUR DISTRICT - 521225. 4. THE COMMISSIONER, PANCHAYAT RAJ AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT PRADESH, TADEPALLI, GUNTUR DISTRICT - 522501. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KRISHNA DISTRICT AT MACHILIPATNA.M -521001. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3332] FRIDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF APRIL THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI BUNGA MARIYA DASU, S/O. B. VEERA SWAMY, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, OCC SECRETARY OF SRI RATNA FISHERMAN SOCIETY, H.NO. 33, ILAPARRU, NANDIVADA MANDAL, KRISHNA DISTRICT - ...PETITIONER SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, PANCHAYAT RAJ AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, WATER RESOURCES IAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF LAND ADMINISTRATION, THE COMMISSIONER, PANCHAYAT RAJ AND RURAL OF ANDHRA 522501. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KRISHNA DISTRICT AT 2 6. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, GUDIVADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT - 521301. 7. THE DIVISIONAL PANCHAYAT OFFICER, GUDIVADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT - 521301. 8. 8. THE DISTRICT PANCHAYAT OFFICER, KRISHNA DISTRICT AT MACHILIPATNAM - 521001 9. THE MANDAL PARISHAD, DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, NANDIVADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT - 521321. 10. THE LLAPARRU GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, LLAPARU, NANDIVADA MANDAL, KRISHNA DISTRICT - 521321. 11. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, DRAINAGE DIVISION, GUDIVADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT - 521301. 12. THE DEPUTY EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, GUDIVADA SUB-DIVISION GUDIVADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT - 521301. ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the in-action of the respondents basing on the representation dated 26.12.2025 having received the said representation as illegal, arbitrary and colourable exercise and violation of the legal duty caste on the respondents and violation of the Article 14, 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequentially direct the respondents to protect the interest of the petitioner's society by providing facility to eking livelihood by catching fish and doing agricultural works by allotting the lands in surrounding area of Old Buddamerru of Ilaparru Grama Panchayat to the petitioners society members and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2026 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 consider representation dated 26.12.2025 after 3 giving personal hearing to the society members, pending disposal of the above Writ Petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. T N M RANGA RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV 2. GP FOR REVENUE 3. GP FOR IRRI AND CAD 4 The Court made the following order: Aggrieved by the non-consideration of representation, dated 26.12.2025 submitted by the petitioner, the present Writ Petition has been filed. 2. The brief facts of the case are that: The petitioner’s society was registered as per Rc.No.5726/78/E dated 05.03.1979, and its members are eking out their livelihood by catching fish in Old Budameru and New Budameru areas and also carrying out agricultural activities in the surrounding lands for their livelihood. Most of the members of the society belong to Scheduled Caste community and are living below the poverty line. The society members have been continuously and peacefully carrying on fishing and cultivation activities in Old Budameru, New Budameru, and surrounding lands as per the rights and usage recognized over several years. While the things stood thus, recently certain third parties/wrongdoers started interfering with the fishing and agricultural activities of the petitioner society and have been creating obstruction in Old Budameru and New Budameru areas by altering the flow of water, encroaching upon surrounding lands, and creating hurdles in their livelihood activities. It is the further case of the petitioner that some persons, other than Scheduled Caste members, are attempting to raise structures in the Budameru and surrounding areas, thereby obstructing fishing operations and cultivation activities being carried out by the petitioner society members. Representation dated 26.12.2025 was submitted to the concerned authorities requesting them to take action against the said 5 illegal interference and to protect the rights of the petitioner society members to carry on fishing and agricultural activities. However, no action has been taken by the respondent authorities on the said representation. Aggrieved by the same the present Writ Petition is filed. 3. Heard Sri T.N.M.Rangarao, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Irrigation Department and learned standing counsel for Gram Panchayat. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in elaboration to what has been stated in the writ affidavit, contended that some third parties (wrong doers) are interfering with the petitioner’s society and obstructing them from catching fish, thereby affecting their livelihood. In those circumstances, a representation was made to the authorities, but no steps have been taken so far. He further submitted that it would suffice if a direction is given to the authorities to take steps on the petitioner’s representation. In support of his contention, he relied upon the judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Government of India and another v. P.Venkatesh1 and the Coordinate Bench of this Court in Water Users’ Association, Peddacheruvu, Maddulaparva village, Krishna District v. District Collector, Krishna District and others2. 5. On the other hand, learned Assistant Government Pleaders for Revenue, Panchayat Raj & Irrigation Department and learned standing 1 (2019) 15 Supreme Court Cases 613 2 1998 (5) ALD 238 6 counsel for Gram Panchayat in one voice submitted that the grievance of the petitioner is so vague and relates to dispute with third parties, for which the petitioner has an effective alternative remedy before the competent Civil Court. They further submit that no statutory duty is made out warranting issuance of a writ of Mandamus and that the Writ Petition is devoid of merits and prayed to dismiss the Writ Petition. 6. Perused the record and considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. 7. At the outset, it is noticed that the petitioner society is not a party before this Court. One Bunga Mariya Dasu, claiming to be the secretary of Sri Ratna Fisherman Society, has filed the present Writ Petition. A resolution has been placed on record along with a memo authorizing the petitioner to represent the society, however, basing on the said authorization, he cannot file Writ Petition in his personal capacity and the Writ Petition can be dismissed on that sole ground alone. 8. Further perusal of the affidavit it clearly shows that some third parties are interfering with the petitioner’s livelihood, which is in the nature of a civil dispute. In the said circumstances, the petitioner has to approach the competent Civil Court. The petitioner has failed to establish as to against whom the writ of Mandamus is sought to be issued and under which statutory provision and whether any enforceable duty is cast upon the respondents. In the absence of pleading and establishment of a specific statutory duty, issuance of writ of mandamus is not permissible. 7 9. In the decision relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner (1st cited supra), the Hon’ble Apex Court held that: “8. This ‘dispose of the representation’ mantra is increasingly permeating the judicial process in the High Courts and the Tribunals. Such orders may made a quick or easy disposal of the cases in overburdened adjudicatory institutions. But, they do no service to the cause of justice. The litigant is back again before the court, as this case shows, having incurred attendant costs and suffered delays of the legal process.” This decision is no way helpful to the facts of the case on hand. 10. In the decision relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner (2nd cited supra), the Coordinate Bench of this Court has dealt the issue interpreting the phrase ‘any other purpose’, in short, means the ‘enforcement of any legal right’ and the ‘performance of any legal duty’. A right to be considered is also a legal right which can be enforced under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. On the other hand, if the Court finds that a representation or a letter or a correspondence or a petition filed before a public authority is extra-legal, no direction can be issued to such public authority to consider and dispose of such representation or petitioner or correspondence under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The said judgment is against to the petitioner’s case on hand. 11. In the present case, a representation has been made to the authority to stop separation of the Ilaparru Gram Panchayat by protecting their rights over 8 the old and new Budameru, coupled with the surrounding lands which are retained for the purpose of cultivation by the Harijana people and to consider the request of the society members and their family members, however, it does not satisfy the criterion for consideration as specified in the above cited decision. In the absence of the same, no Mandamus can be issued. 12. In Bihar Eastern Gangetic Fishermen Cooperative Society Ltd v. Sipahi Singh3, a Three-Judge Bench of the Apex Court held that a writ of mandamus can be granted only in a case where there is a statutory duty imposed upon the officer concerned and there is a failure on the part of that officer to discharge the statutory obligation. The chief function of a writ is to compel performance of public duties prescribed by statute and to keep subordinate tribunals and officers exercising public functions within the limit of their jurisdiction. Paragraph 15 of the said decision reads thus: “15….There is abundant authority in favour of the proposition that a writ of mandamus can be granted only in a case where there is a statutory duty imposed upon the officer concerned and there is a failure on the part of that officer to discharge the statutory obligation. The chief function of a writ is to compel performance of public duties prescribed by statute and to keep subordinate tribunals and officers exercising public functions within the limit of their jurisdiction. It follows, therefore, that in order that mandamus may issue to compel the authorities to do something, it must be shown that there is a statute to enforce its performance.” 3 1977 4 SCC 145 9 13. In the present case, no statutory duty or legal obligation has been established against the respondents so as to warrant issuance of a writ of mandamus. In the absence of the same, this Court is not inclined to grant the relief sought for. 14. In view of the aforesaid discussion and following the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the decision cited supra, this Court is of the considered view that the Writ Petition is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed. 15. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. However, the petitioner is at liberty to approach appropriate forum in accordance with law for redressal of grievance. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, interlocutory applications pending, if any in the Writ Petition, shall also stand closed. ___________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI 17.04.2026 MP 10 210 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO.6568 OF 2026 17.04.2026 MP 11