Judgment : This writ petition is filed with two-fold relief, namely, (1) to invalidate the action of the respondents in seizing four bore wells of the petitioners and (2) to quash FIR No.297/2013, dated 04.04.2013, on the file of respondent No.3. As regards the first part of the relief, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that on the directions given by this Court his clients have filed an appeal before respondent No.1 and that the said appeal was dismissed by her by ordcer, dated 17.06.2013. The learned counsel further submitted that his clients may be left free to avail appropriate remedy against the said order. The learned counsel, however, seriously questioned the action of the respondents in registering a criminal case under Section 430 IPC. Respondent No.3 filed a counter affidavit, wherein he has sought to defend the registration of criminal case and stated that the investigation into the case is pending. A perusal of the panchanama, dated 03.04.2013, shows that it is stated therein that one Surya Rao Patel is found to have dug bore wells and has been doing business by selling water from the bore wells. Therefore, electrical fuses were removed and seized while locking and sealing the room which housed seven numbers of motors. Following the same, an FIR was registered on the file of respondent No.3 on 04.04.2013 under Section 430 IPC and Section 35 of A.P. Water, Land & Trees Act, 2002 (for short ‘the WALTA Act’). In the FIR, it is alleged that the accused who are three in number, are lifting the water for commercial purpose without permission. In the remand report, dated 10.04.2013, it is inter alia stated as under: “Facts of the case are that on 04.04.2013 at 1630 hours received a complaint from Sri V. Hanuman Reddy Occu:Deputy Collector & Tahsildar, Balanagar Mandal, R.R.District vide letter:B/497/2013, dated 03.04.2013 stating that as per the directions of District Collector, RR District he visited Navodaya Colony, inspected and found four bore well points from which the water is being lifted in the water tankers for commercial purpose. There were tankers which are lifting water which are having a capacity of 5000 liters. There were tankers which are lifting water which are having a capacity of 5000 liters. All the bore wells power units were immediately seized and the bore well points were dug in Survey: 294, 295 and 296 of Kukatpally Village and on local enquiry 1) Nayineni Surya Rao, 2) Nayineni Kondal Rao and 3) Nayineni Tulasi Rao are the owner of land who are running the illegal lifting of water through bore wells which are dug illegally without permission as per AP WALTA Act. A panchanama is conducted on seizure of the bore wells and the same is enclosed for taking further action in the matter. Hence, the complainant requested for necessary action.” It is further stated: “Investigation reveals that the accused A1) Nayineni Surya Rao S/o Late Narayana Rao Age: 50 years Caste: Velma is doing business and residing at H.No.3-6-40/8, Plot: 198, Vivekananda Nagar, Kukatpally, Balanagar Mandal, R R District, A2) Nayineni Kondal Rao S/o Kistaiah Age: 80 years Caste: Velma is doing business and residing at Seshadri Nagar, Kukatpally, R R District and A3) Nayineni Tulasi Rao S/o Late Narayana Rao Age: 46 years Caste: Velma is doing business and residing at plot: 716, Vivekananda Nagar, Kukatpally, Balanagar Mandal, R R District are relatives. They are having land in Survey: 294, 295 and 296 situated at Navodaya Colony, Kukatpally Village, Balanagar Mandal, R R District in which they dug four bore wells without taking prior permission from the authorities with an intention to gain wrongful income by supplying the ground water to the tankers who are in need. Since quite some period, the accused A1 to A3 allowing the water tankers in their said land and also allowing them to fill their tankers each having capacity of 5000 liters and gaining wrongful income and thereby the accused A1 to A3 found committed an offence under Section: 430 IPC, Section 35 A P WALTA Act, 2002.” Section 430 IPC relates to mischief by injury to works of irrigation or by wrongfully diverting water (430. Mischief by injury to works of irrigation or by wrongfully diverting water.- Whoever commits mischief by doing any act which causes, or which he knows to be likely to cause, a diminution of the supply of water for agricultural purposes, or for food or drink for human beings or for animals which are property, or for cleanliness or for carrying on any manufacture, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to five years, or with fine, or with both.”. In order to attract the offence under Section 430 IPC, the following ingredients need to be satisfied: (1) the person is found to have committed mischief, and (2) such mischief relates to doing of any act causing or which he knows to be likely to cause diminution of the supply of water for agricultural purposes or for food or drink for human beings or for animals or for cleanliness or for carrying on any manufacture. As noted above, there is no allegation either in the panchanama or in the FIR that by drawing water from the bore wells for commercial use by the petitioners, there will be diminution of the supply of water and that the petitioners have knowledge of such diminution. Mere extraction of water for commercial purpose without prior permission at best constitutes violation of the provisions of the WALTA Act. In the absence of allegation that such drawal of water constitutes mischief and the petitioners had knowledge of the consequences of such mischief as enumerated in Section 430 IPC, the said provision is not attracted. I am therefore of the opinion that registration of the criminal case under the provisions of Section 430 IPC is wholly unsustainable. With regard to Section 35 of the WALTA Act, the same envisages penalties by way of fine and it has not envisaged no criminal prosecution is envisaged. For the above-mentioned reasons, F.I.R.No.297/2013, dated 04.04.2013, on the file of respondent No.3, is quashed and the writ petition is accordingly allowed. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.17776 of 2013 shall stand disposed of as infructuous.