JUDGMENT : 1. This Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioners, who are 13 in number, seeking mandamus declaring the action of the respondents 2 to 5 in granting licence to dig fish tanks in an extent of Ac.239.25 cents comprising R.S.Nos.72, 69/1, 71/1, 71/2, 30, 32, 33, 38, 39, 40, 35, 44/1, 55/2, 51/2, 63/1A, 55/5A, 56/1B, 52/4, 5, 64/1A, 46/2, 3, 4, 49/1, 2, 50/3, 51/2, 52/6, 53/2, 55/1, 45, 46, 47, 49, 50, 70/1, 225/2, 226/2A, 2B, 227/2A, 2B, 2C, 228/1A, 1B, 2, 3, 232/1A, 232/2, 3, 232/2, 43/3B, 65/2, 65/2, 65/2, 65/2, 250, 251/6, 251/8 and 251/9 of Gogunta, Vasanthawada Villages, Pedapadu Mandal, West Godavari District, is illegal, arbitrary, against the principles of natural justice and violative of Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India, and contrary to G.O.Ms.No.83, Animal Husbandry, Dairy Development Fisheries (F.II) Department, dated 12.09.2007 and G.O.Ms.No.18, Animal Husbandry, Dairy Development Fisheries (F.II) Department, dated 26.03.2008 and consequently cancel the licences issued to the respondents 6 to 20. 2. The petitioners are agriculturists owning different small extents of double crop wet lands in Vasanthawada and Gogunta villages, Pedapadu Mandal, West Godavari District. Their principal means of livelihood is income derived from their agricultural lands. The lands own by the petitioners are very fertile and double crop wet lands. The respondents 6 to 20 own Ac.239.29 cents in different survey numbers and their lands are towards upper side of the petitioners lands. The respondents 6 to 20 made applications for conversion of their agricultural lands into fish tanks. The authorities by order dated 30.01.2010 accorded permission to the respondents 6 to 20 for conversion of their agricultural lands into fish tanks. The petitioners, on coming to know of the permission being granted to the respondents 6 to 20, made an application under Right to Information Act, 2005, on 22.02.2010 for copies of the orders under which permission has been granted to the respondents 6 to 20 for conversion of their agricultural lands into fish tanks. It is the version of the petitioners that permission was accorded to the respondents 6 to 20 for conversion of the agricultural lands into fish tanks contrary to the guidelines issued in G.O.Ms.No.83, Animal Husbandry, Dairy Development Fisheries (F.II) Department, dated 12.09.2007 and G.O.Ms.No.18, Animal Husbandry, Dairy Development Fisheries (F.II) Department, dated 26.03.2008. It is the version of the petitioners that permission was accorded to the respondents 6 to 20 for conversion of the agricultural lands into fish tanks contrary to the guidelines issued in G.O.Ms.No.83, Animal Husbandry, Dairy Development Fisheries (F.II) Department, dated 12.09.2007 and G.O.Ms.No.18, Animal Husbandry, Dairy Development Fisheries (F.II) Department, dated 26.03.2008. The objections raised by the petitioners for conversion of the agricultural lands owned by the respondents 6 to 20 into fish tanks are three folded -firstly, the respondents 6 to 20 will be drawing huge quantities of water; secondly, the respondents 6 to 20 will rear fish by using all sorts of artificial feed, chemicals, manures etc.; and thirdly, the stagnated water will be bailed out and let into the main drain and the same will be percolated and enter into drinking water tanks and also surrounding agricultural lands of the petitioners. According to the petitioners, one Sambangi Sravankumar S/o.Satyanarayana of Vasanthawada village, Pedapadu Mandal, West Godavari District, is an highly influential person and he is responsible for securing permissions to respondents 6 to 20 to dig fish tanks in the fertile agricultural lands against all the rules, contrary to the guidelines and various pronouncements of this Court and the Apex Court. Since the permissions secured by the respondents 6 to 20 are contrary to the guidelines issued by the Government and also by this Court and the apex Court, they seek necessary directions to the respondents 1 to 5 to prevent the respondents 6 to 20 from digging the fish tanks in the agricultural lands of Vasanthawada and Gogunta villages, Pedapadu Mandal, West Godavari District. 3. Rule Nisi came to be issued on 23.04.2010. An interim order came to be passed restraining the respondents 6 to 20 from digging fish tanks and carrying on aqua operations therein, on the even date vide WPMP No.12039 of 2010. 4. The respondents entered appearance through their respective counsel. Respondents 1 to 5 filed WVMP No.2172 of 2010 and whereas, respondents 6 to 20 filed WVMP No.1904 of 2010 with a prayer to vacate the interim order dated 23.04.2010 passed in WPMP No.12039 of 2010. 5. The counter-affidavit of the respondents 1 to 4, in brief, is: The applications filed by the respondents 6 to 20 have been considered by the District Level Committee as per the guidelines issued in G.O.Ms.No.83, Animal Husbandry, Dairy Development Fisheries (F.II) Department, dated 12.09.2007. 5. The counter-affidavit of the respondents 1 to 4, in brief, is: The applications filed by the respondents 6 to 20 have been considered by the District Level Committee as per the guidelines issued in G.O.Ms.No.83, Animal Husbandry, Dairy Development Fisheries (F.II) Department, dated 12.09.2007. The departmental officers concerned have personally inspected the lands in question and recommended for permission. The District Level Committee, after considering all the facts, have taken decision to accord permission to the respondents 6 to 20. The lands of the petitioners are in Vasanthawada Part-II village and whereas, the lands of the respondents 6 to 20 are situated in Gogunta village in low laying area and regularly subjected to submersion thereby causing substantial loss to the crops raised by them. Permissions have been accorded to the respondents 6 to 20 with conditions to provide seepage channels without causing any seepage to the adjacent lands. Therefore, seepage of water from fish tanks does not arise. The decision of the District Level Committee in according permission to the respondents 6 to 20 to convert their agricultural lands into fish tanks is as per the guidelines in vogue. I deem it appropriate to refer the relevant portion of the counter-affidavit, which reads as hereunder: "In reply to para No.14 of the affidavit, it is submitted that permission has been accorded by the District Level Committee headed by the District Collector and other Departmental Officers (Committee members) as per G.O.Ms.No.83, Dt.12.09.2007 pursuant to the directions given by the Hon'ble High Court in W.P.No.2181/2001, dated 26.07.2006, as lands are less productive, low lying area, regularly subject to submersion due to water logging. The Government have also sanctioned input subsidies to these lands as they have been subjected to inundation and thereby loss to the crops every year. The lands of the petitioners are on higher level whereas the lands of the respondents are on lower level. Hence, permission is not at all detrimental to the interest of petitioners in this case. Therefore, permission for digging fish tank is not illegal, arbitrary and not against to the principle of the natural justice. The lands of the petitioners are on higher level whereas the lands of the respondents are on lower level. Hence, permission is not at all detrimental to the interest of petitioners in this case. Therefore, permission for digging fish tank is not illegal, arbitrary and not against to the principle of the natural justice. The lands of the petitioners in this case are in Vasanthavada Part II village, whereas the lands of the respondents 6 to 20 in low lying area situated in Gogunta village and regularly subjected to submersion thereby sustaining irreparable loss, are in Gogunta village, of course, in the same Mandal as stated by the petitioners, but there is no effect to the lands of the petitioners due to digging of fish tanks in the lands of respondents, because the lands of the petitioners are situated in Vasanthavada village whereas, the lands the respondents are in Gogunta village, that too, prone to water logging. Therefore, there is no truth in the contention of the petitioners in this para. and questioning the permission accorded to the respondents by the District Committee is not justifiable as there is no loss to the petitioners." 6. The counter-affidavit of the respondents 6 to 20, in brief, is : The writ petition is motivated by the 1st petitioner viz., Pulavarthy Ankaraju, who is engaged in the business of paddy commission agent, under the apprehension that if the agricultural lands of the respondents 6 to 20 are converted into fish tanks, his business would be affected. The neighbouring lands had already been converted into fish tanks and thereby the lands of these respondents became unfit and as a result, there was no yielding being derived from the lands. Therefore, these respondents have no option except to convert their agricultural lands too into fish tanks. They submitted applications to the District Collector, who is the Chair-person of Fresh Water Aquaculture District Level Committee, West Godavari, Eluru. The District Level Committee called for various reports from the competent authorities and thereafter, proceeded to accord individual permissions to these respondents for conversion of their agricultural lands into fish tanks. The petitioners by suppressing the material facts obtained interim order in WPMP no.12039 of 2010 on 23.04.2010. The District Level Committee called for various reports from the competent authorities and thereafter, proceeded to accord individual permissions to these respondents for conversion of their agricultural lands into fish tanks. The petitioners by suppressing the material facts obtained interim order in WPMP no.12039 of 2010 on 23.04.2010. Prajavani conducted enquiry into the matter and found that the information furnished by these respondents is true and finally decided not to interfere with the conversion of their agricultural lands into fish tanks. 7. The writ petitioners filed reply affidavit to the counter-affidavits filed by the respondents. It is pertinent to note that the petitioners in their reply affidavit stated that mere damage to the crop in one year due to cyclone is not an authentic documentary evidence to conclude that the lands are situated in a low lying area. Mere damage or submersion at the time of cyclone is not a ground to grant permission for conversion of agricultural land into fish tank and if this criterion is taken into consideration for granting licence, all the lands situated in the entire coastal region can be converted into fish tanks irrespective of the fertility or location. The farmers of the Gogunta village are paying taxes to the Government regularly for the Sarva and Dalwa crops at the rate of Rs.200/- for 1st crop and Rs.150/-for the 2nd crop per acre. The respondents 6 to 20 are getting yield of nearly 35 to 40 bags of paddy per acre in Sarva and Dalwa crops though a major part of the State is facing drought situation. It is suffice to refer para.6 of the reply affidavit filed by the petitioners, which reads as hereunder: "6. I submit that in reply to the allegations in para.No.5 of the counter- affidavit that the petitioners failed to explain how they will incur loss if the respondents convert their lands into fish tanks. I submit that I categorically mentioned the damage caused due to the conversion in paras.4 & 5 of my affidavit filed in support of the writ petition. I submit that I categorically mentioned the damage caused due to the conversion in paras.4 & 5 of my affidavit filed in support of the writ petition. As regards to further averments in para.5 that the respondents are absolute owners and they are entitled to enjoy their lands as they like and hence there is no necessity to obtain no objection from the petitioners is incorrect as per the pronouncement of apex Court judgment "that a person does not have any right to contaminate the water to cause damages to the holders of the neighbouring agricultural fields. Large scale defoulment in the quality of water so as make it unusable by others or as a result whereof, the water is contaminated and becomes unpotable would be violative of Article 21 of Constitution of India." The further averment in para.5 of the counter affidavit that the Praja Vani authorities conducted enquiry and submitted report to the concerned authorities by the Fisheries Department stating that no damage will be caused to the petitioners lands is incorrect as the petitioners were never asked to participate in the enquiry said to have been conducted by the authorities. It appears that the authorities enquired only with the GPA Holder of the respondents 6 to 11." 8. When the Vacate Stay Petitions came up for consideration, with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the writ petition is taken up for final disposal. 9. Heard Sri S.Appadhara Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned Government Pleader for Fisheries, appearing for the respondents 1 to 5; and Smt.V.Padmaja Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the respondents 6 to 20. 10. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the lands owned by the respondents 6 to 20 are fertile lands getting good yield of over 30 to 40 bags for each crop and therefore, permission granted to them by the respondents 1 to 5 for converting the agricultural lands into fish tanks is contrary to the guidelines issued in G.O.Ms.No.83, Animal Husbandry, Dairy Development Fisheries (F.II) Department, dated 12.09.2007 and also contrary to the judgment of this Court in Madireddy Padma Rambabu v. District Forest Officer 2002(3) ALT 57 (D.B.) and also to the judgment of the Supreme Court in S.Jagannath v. Union of India & Ors. AIR 1997 S.C. 811 . AIR 1997 S.C. 811 . Learned counsel further submits that the respondents 1 to 5 failed to consider the objections raised by the petitioners for conversion of the agricultural lands into fish tanks by the respondents 6 to 20 and therefore, necessary direction is required to be given to the respondents 1 to 5 to consider the objections raised by the petitioners and pending consideration of the objections, respondents 6 to 20 are to be restrained from converting the agricultural lands into fish tanks. The learned counsel refers the guidelines enclosed to the G.O.Ms.No.83, Animal Husbandry, Dairy Development Fisheries (F.II) Department, dated 12.09.2007, to be followed by the District Level Committee while according permission for construction of new or for regularization of existing fresh water aquaculture ponds and also the decision of the Supreme Court and this Court referred supra. 11. The Supreme Court in S.Jagannath v. Union of India & Ors.'s case (2 supra), directed as hereunder: "5. The farmers who are operating traditional and improved traditional systems of aquaculture may adopt improved technology for increased production productivity and return with prior approval of the "authority" constituted by this order. 6. The agricultural lands, salt pan lands, mangroves, wet lands, forest lands, land for village common purpose and the land meant for public purposes shall not be used/converted for construction of shrimp culture ponds. 7. No aquaculture industry/shrimp culture industry/ shrimp culture ponds shall be constructed/set up within 1000 meter or Chilka lake and Pulicat lake (including Bird Sanctuaries namely Yadurapattu and Nelapattu) 8. Aquaculture industry/shrimp aquaculture industry/ shrimp culture ponds already operating and functioning in the said area of 1000 meter shall be closed and demolished before 31/03/1997. We direct the Superintendent of Police/Deputy Commissioner of Police and the District Magistrate/Collector of the area to enforce this direction and close/demolish and aquaculture industries/shrimp culture industries, shrimp culture ponds on or before 31/03/1997. A compliance report in this respect shall be filed in this Court by these authorities before 15/04/1997. 9. Aquaculture industry/shrimp culture industry/shrimp culture ponds other than traditional and improved traditional may be set up/constructed outside the coastal regulation zone as defined by the CRZ notification and outside 1000 meter of Chilka and Pulicat lakes with the prior approval of the authority as constituted by this Court. 9. Aquaculture industry/shrimp culture industry/shrimp culture ponds other than traditional and improved traditional may be set up/constructed outside the coastal regulation zone as defined by the CRZ notification and outside 1000 meter of Chilka and Pulicat lakes with the prior approval of the authority as constituted by this Court. Such industries which are already operating in the said areas shall detain authorisation from the "authority" before 30/04/1997 failing which the industry concerned shall stop functioning with effect from the said date. We further direct that any aquaculture activity including intensive and semi-intensive which has the effect of causing salinity of soil, or the drinking water or wells and/or by the use or chemical reeds increases shrimp or prawn production with consequent increase in sedimentation which, on putrefaction is a potential health hazard, apart from causing siltation turbidity of water courses and estuaries with detrimental implication on local fauna and flora shall not be allowed by the aforesaid Authority. 12. In Madireddy Padma Rambabu v. District Forest Officer's case (1 supra), a Division Bench of this Court considered the guidelines issued by the Supreme Court in S.Jagannath's case (2 supra), and observed that the State is under a constitutional obligation to ensure the enforcement of the citizens' right to pollution free environment under the existing legislations like the Environmental Protection Act and the Coastal Zone Regulations. It is useful to refer paras.59 and 60 of the judgment, which read as hereunder: "59. The authority has also issued various forms including for those who intend to adopt improved technology for increased production and application for authorization of/approval of shrimp culture other than traditional and improved traditional which are already operating/ proposed to be set up/constructed which would include proposals where existing farms are also proposed to be expanded outside the coastal regulation zone and outside 1000 metre of Chilka and Pulicat lakes including bird sanctuaries therein. Such authorization in relation thereto as prescribed in Form IV, if any, granted, is subject to the following conditions, (a) shrimp culture farm/shrimp culture ponds shall restart operation/be set up/constructed only after obtaining Authorisation/ approval from the Aquaculture authority; (b) The farm shall not deviate from the approved design and operation; (c) The farm shall not cause salinisation of soil or drinking water or wells; (d) The farm shall not cause increased sedimentation and health hazards; (e) The farm shall not cause siltation, turbidity of water course and estuaries with detrimental implication on local fauna and flora; (f) The arm shall establish and operate an Effluent Treatment Plant and shall ensure that the effluent quality at discharge point conforms to the specific standards prescribed by the Pollution Control Board of the concerned State/U.T; (g) This Authorisation/approval in form-IV be exhibited in the premises and produced for checking whenever demanded by an inspecting officer; and (h) The Authorisation/approval is not transferable. 60. The said authority has to function under the control of the Government of India in the Ministry of Agriculture and has laid down the rules of procedure. As per rule 12 of the said rules, the authority has the power of removal or demolition of any shrimp farm and/or any structure therein which is causing any adverse impact on ecology. Evidently, not only those farmers who are already operating other than traditional and improved traditional systems of shrimp culture or proposed to be set up/constructed outside CRZ are required to obtain authorization but also those farmers who are already operating traditional and improved traditional systems of shrimp aquaculture and who intend to apply for adoption of improved technology for increased production and productivity are required to obtain prior permission. Such prior permissions are required to be granted in accordance with the procedure laid down therein." 13. The Government of Andhra Pradesh in compliance of the guidelines issued by this Court in Madireddy Padma Rambabu's case (1 supra), issued G.O.Ms.No.83, dated 12.09.2007, constituting the District Level Committee. The G.O. contains the composition of the District Level Committee for according permission for setting up of new fresh water aquaculture units and for regularizing the existing fresh water aquaculture in the State. 14. Learned Government Pleader for Fisheries appearing for the respondents 1 to 5 submits that the District Level Committee considered the report of the Tahsildar, Pedapadu Mandal; Asst. 14. Learned Government Pleader for Fisheries appearing for the respondents 1 to 5 submits that the District Level Committee considered the report of the Tahsildar, Pedapadu Mandal; Asst. Engineer, Irrigation Section, Perikeedu; Assistant Hydrologist, Ground Water Department, Eluru; Agriculture Officer, Pedapadu; and Asst. Inspector of Fisheries, Pedapadu, and accorded permission to the respondents 6 to 20 individually subject to certain terms and conditions stipulated therein on 30.01.2010. He would also submit that the lands own by the respondents 6 to 20 are situated in low level when compared to the lands own by the petitioners. A further contention has been advanced that the representation of the petitioners raising objections with regard to the permission granted to the respondents 6 to 20 for conversion of the land have been considered and found meritless and the same has been communicated to the 1st petitioner. 15. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents 6 to 20 submitted arguments almost all on the same lines as that of the learned Government Pleader for Fisheries appearing for the respondents 1 to 5. 16. During the course of the arguments, leaned Government Pleader for Fisheries placed before me the relevant file emanating issuance of the proceedings according permissions to the respondents 6 to 20 for conversion of agricultural lands into fish tanks. Each of the application submitted by the respondents 6 to 20 has been processed by various departments. The check list of each of the application contains recommendation made by the Tahsildar, Pedapadu Mandal; Asst. Engineer, Irrigation Section, Perikeedu, Assistant Hydrologist, Ground Water Department, Eluru; Agriculture Officer, Pedapadu; and Asst. Inspector of Fisheries, Pedapadu. The District Level Committee considered the remarks of each of the department indicated above and proceeded to issue permission to the respondents 6 to 20 for conversion of agricultural lands into fish tanks. Even the permission proceedings contain certain conditions, subject to which permission has been granted to the respondents 6 to 20 individually. It is suffice to refer the conditions mentioned in the permission proceedings dated 30.01.2010 issued to Kanikanti Annapurna, 6th respondent herein, which read as follows: 1) For fresh water aquaculture, water from canal/drain water canal has to be utilized. 2) For the loss of water through evaporation and seepage and to fill up the same, bore water has to be used. 2) For the loss of water through evaporation and seepage and to fill up the same, bore water has to be used. 3) If there is agricultural land adjacent to the fish tank, if any seepage of water, the aqua culture holder has to provide a seepage channel in between the lands. 4) The cultivable tanks have to be kept for dry for every two years. 5) The sophisticated system has to be adopted to avoid the pollution etc. 6) The fish/prawn approved by the A.P. Aquaculture (Quality Control) Act, 2006 have to be raised. 7) That the Central Government in its Gazette Notification has prohibited some antibiotics and other chemicals in the aquaculture. The said antibiotics and chemicals shall not be used. 8) If the terms and conditions mentioned above and the terms specified earlier are violated, the permission for aquaculture will be cancelled without any notice and the District Collector is the competent authority." It is evident from the above permission letter that the District Level Committee has taken note of the guidelines issued by the Supreme Court as well as this High Court while according permission to the respondents 6 to 20 individually. 17. A contention has been advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that the fertile lands have been converted into fish tanks, which is impermissible under the guidelines issued in G.O.Ms.No.83, Animal Husbandry, Dairy Development Fisheries (F.II) Department, dated 12.09.2007. 18. Per contra, learned Government Pleader for Fisheries appearing for the respondents 1 to 5 submits that the field enumeration proforma prepared by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Pedapadu, West Godavari District, indicates that about 75% of the crops raised by the respondents 6 to 20 came to be inundated due to heavy cyclonic rains received from 28th to 31st October, 2006 in West Godavari District. Learned Government Pleader also refers the report submitted by the Assistant Director of Agriculture, Eluru, on the complaints from the farmers of Vasanthawada village on the permission being granted to the respondents 6 to 20 to convert the agricultural lands into fish tanks. The Assistant Director of Agriculture examined the complaints and found that the objections are not well founded. He sent a report to the Joint Director of Agriculture, Eluru, on 22.04.2010. The relevant portion of the letter reads as hereunder: "In obedience to the orders issued contained in the reference cited, myself, Asst. The Assistant Director of Agriculture examined the complaints and found that the objections are not well founded. He sent a report to the Joint Director of Agriculture, Eluru, on 22.04.2010. The relevant portion of the letter reads as hereunder: "In obedience to the orders issued contained in the reference cited, myself, Asst. Director of Agriculture, Eluru, Mandal Agriculture Officer, Pedapadu, and Asst. Director of Fisheries and Asst. Inspector of Fisheries Department visited Gogunta and Vasanthavada villages on the after noon on 15.4.2010. The team discussed in detail with the farmers of both the villages and statements recorded in the presence of Official Team Members and Farmers of the said two villages. The recording of statements took place in public place in Gogunta at farmers fields and in Vasanthavada in Panchayat Office. The findings and observations are recoded. 1) There is one pantabodhi/drain in the Middle of the two villages; 2) The bodhi is used as pantabodhi for Gogunta village farmers and the same bodhi is used as drain for Vasanthavada farmers; 3) The panta bodhi/drain bodhi is in the boarder of Gogunta and Vasanthavada villages. 4) Gogunta farmers adjacent to the bodhi already obtained licences for aquaculture as per the guidelines available in G.O.Ms.No.83, dt.12.9.2007 of Fisheries Department. 5) The petitioner Sri P.Anka Raju on behalf of the Vasanthavada farmers filed a representation to the Joint Director of Agriculture, Eluru and stated that farmers of Gogunta and Vasanthavada are getting 70 bags of Paddy yield per acre put together for Kharif and Rabi and requested that aquaculture tanks should not be dug in both the villages. 6) The Gogunta farmers who obtained licence to go for aquaculture stated that they are getting 20-22 bags of paddy per acre they are losing Kharif crop due to rains and water logging and getting yield in Rabi and it is also uneconomical because of increased cost of cultivation of inputs and labour wages. 7) The Gogunta farmers are willing to follow the draft guidelines fixed by the District Level Committee read from 1 to 12. 7) The Gogunta farmers are willing to follow the draft guidelines fixed by the District Level Committee read from 1 to 12. 8) The Gogunta farmers are willing to dig one seepage channel with a width of five meter size between the proposed aquaculture ponds and the existing Panta/Drain bodhi and also willing to maintain the seepage channel as well as the existing Panta Bodhi/Drain bodhi as read with rule fifth draft guidelines to be followed by the District Level Committee vide Aquaculture Licence year after year. 9) Vasanthavada farmers objected in their statement and opined that digging of aquaculture tanks by Gogunta farmers likely to spoil the fields. Under the circumstances explained, observations made and statements recorded, it is submitted that the farmers of Gogunta village who were issued Licences to go for aquaculture maybe permitted to dig aquaculture tanks because the said farmers are willing to obey the draft guidelines numbered from one to twelve (1 to 12) to be followed by the District Level Committee while issuing Aquaculture Licences. The said farmers are also willing to dig five (5) meter width seepage channel between proposed aquaculture ponds and existing panta/drain bodhi. The farmers are also willing to maintain the seepage channel and also panta/drain bodhi (Desilting) year after year. As such the Gogunmta farmers may be permitted to go for aquaculture tanks as they were already issued licences. The inspection report is submitted along with references cited." 19. The material brought on record indicates that the District Level Committee has considered the applications of the respondents 6 to 20 in accordance with the guidelines issued in G.O.Ms.No.83, Animal Husbandry, Dairy Development Fisheries (F.II) Department, dated 12.09.2007 and accorded permission to the respondents 6 to 20 individually subject to the certain conditions. Even the complaints made by the petitioners have been examined by the Asst. Director of Agriculture, Eluru and recommended the case of the respondents 6 to 20 to go ahead with the conversion of agricultural lands into aquaculture. The contention of the petitioners that the District Level Committee has not considered the guidelines issued in G.O.Ms.No.83, Animal Husbandry, Dairy Development Fisheries (F.II) Department, dated 12.09.2007 while according permission to the respondents 6 to 20 for conversion of their agricultural lands into fish tanks has no substance. 20. In view of the above, the writ petition fails and it is hereby dismissed. 20. In view of the above, the writ petition fails and it is hereby dismissed. Consequently, WVMP Nos.2172 and 1904 of 2010 stand allowed vacating the interim order dated 23.04.2010 passed in WPMP No.12039 of 2010. No costs.