Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 842 (AP)

Kadimi Satyanarayana v. State of Andhra Pradesh

2021-12-09

BATTU DEVANAND

body2021
ORDER : 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsels appearing for the respective Respondents. Perused the material available on record. 2. This writ petition has been filed against the action of the Respondents in not allowing the petitioner to catch the fish in Mangayyagari Water Tank, situated in Palakoderu Grampanchayat, West Godavari District, in spite of the direction of this Hon’ble Court and conducting auction again causing loss to the petitioner as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and violative of principles of natural justice and for consequential direction directing the Respondents to allow him to catch the fish by reducing water level in Mangayyagari Water Tank. 3. Sri Ganta Rama Rao, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that on 09.07.2021, the Respondent No. 7-Gram Panchayat conducted an open auction for catching the fish in the Mangayyagari water tank. The petitioner became highest bidder, having offered Rs.2,67,000/- and the petitioner deposited the said amount on 14.07.2021. As per the terms of the auction, the Respondent No. 7 granted permission to the petitioner to catch the fish on 19.07.2021 from 6-00 a.m. to 6-00 p.m. The petitioner could not catch the fish on that day as it is not possible to catch the fish, unless the water level is reduced. The petitioner approached the Respondent Nos.7 and 8 and explained the situation. The Respondent No. 7 instead of granting permission to reduce the water level to the required level, issued a notice, dated 22.07.2021 stating that auction will be conducted unless the petitioner catch the fish within 48 hours. The petitioner met the Respondent No. 7 and explained the position that he could not catch the fish, if water level is not reduced. But, the Respondent No. 7 without considering the same, again issued another notice, dated 27.07.2021 stating that unless the petitioner catch the fish within 48 hours of receipt of the said notice, they will conduct the auction again. The Respondent No. 7 issued another notice, dated 28.07.2021 stating that if the petitioner failed to catch the fish by 11-00 a.m. on 29.07.2021, they will conduct fresh auction at 2-00 p.m. in the office of the Gram Panchayat by cancelling the auction of the petitioner. The Respondent No. 7 issued another notice, dated 28.07.2021 stating that if the petitioner failed to catch the fish by 11-00 a.m. on 29.07.2021, they will conduct fresh auction at 2-00 p.m. in the office of the Gram Panchayat by cancelling the auction of the petitioner. At this stage, aggrieved with the action of the Respondent No. 7, the petitioner filed W.P. No. 15140 of 2021 and the same was disposed of with a direction to the Respondent No. 7 to permit the petitioner to catch the fish on 01.08.2021 from 4-00 a.m. to 4-00 p.m. pursuant to the auction conducted on 09.07.2021. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that in spite of the directions of this Court, the Respondent Nos.7, 8 and 9 did not allow the petitioner to catch the fish by reducing the water level stating that the farmers objected to reduce the water level and directed to catch the fish without reducing the water level. The petitioner could not catch the fish on 01.08.2021 due to that reason and the Respondent No. 7 issued notice, dated 02.08.2021 asking the petitioner to pay the auction amount and also specified the date to catch the fish on 09.08.2021. The petitioner filed contempt case in C.C. No. 1142 of 2021 against the action of the Respondents and it is pending. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner came to know that the Respondent No. 7 conducted a fresh auction on 26.11.2021 and declared the Respondent No. 10 as successful bidder. The petitioner submitted a representation on 28.10.2021 requesting not to proceed further. The Respondents did not take any action on the said representation. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the action of the Respondents in conducting fresh auction on 26.11.2021 is arbitrary, illegal and violative of principles of natural justice and sought to allow the writ petition directing the Respondents to permit the petitioner to catch the fish. 7. On the other hand, Sri I. Koti Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for Gram Panchayat, on instructions, submits that the petitioner could not catch the fish in spite of several opportunities provided to him. 7. On the other hand, Sri I. Koti Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for Gram Panchayat, on instructions, submits that the petitioner could not catch the fish in spite of several opportunities provided to him. In the interest of Gram Panchayat, a fresh auction was conducted on 26.10.2021 and the Respondent No. 10 was declared as successful bidder, but even after 1½ months, the Respondent No. 10 did not make payment of the auction amount and accordingly, the Respondent No. 7 is going to cancel the auction proceedings taken up on 26.10.2021. 8. Learned Standing Counsel further submits that in the interest of Gram Panchayat if the petitioner come forward to pay some more amount in addition to the amount of Rs.2,67,000/- paid by him, this Court may consider the request of the petitioner to grant the relief sought. 9. Having heard the submissions of the respective counsels and upon perusal of the material available on record, it is clear that though the petitioner became the highest bidder in the auction conducted on 09.07.2021, he could not catch the fish till date in spite of the order of the Court. The Respondent No. 10, who was declared as successful bidder in a fresh auction conducted on 26.10.2021, also did not make payment to the Respondent No. 7 as per the terms of auction and accordingly, he forfeited his right. 10. Admittedly, the fish are lying in the tank from the month of July, 2021 and the petitioner made payment of Rs.2,67,000/-. Under these circumstances, in the considered view of the Court, it is appropriate to dispose of the Writ Petition to meet the interest of justice with the following directions: (i) The Respondent No. 7 is directed to permit the petitioner to catch the fish in the Mangayyagari water tank situated in the limits of the Respondent No. 7-Gram Panchayat on condition of payment of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) by the petitioner (in addition to Rs.2,67,000/- already paid by the petitioner) on or before 10.12.2021. (ii) On such payment by the petitioner, the Respondent No. 7 shall permit the petitioner to catch the fish on 11.12.2021 and 12.12.2021 from 5-00 a.m. to 5-00 p.m. (iii) It is the responsibility of the petitioner to take all steps to catch the fish without asking further time. (ii) On such payment by the petitioner, the Respondent No. 7 shall permit the petitioner to catch the fish on 11.12.2021 and 12.12.2021 from 5-00 a.m. to 5-00 p.m. (iii) It is the responsibility of the petitioner to take all steps to catch the fish without asking further time. (iv) The Respondent No. 7 shall cooperate with the petitioner to enable the petitioner to catch the fish within the time stipulated by this Court without putting any hurdles to the petitioner. (v) Sri G.V.V. Nageswara Rao, Advocate, Bheemavaram (Cell No. 8328618806 and 9392235067) is appointed as Advocate Commissioner to oversee the activities of catching the fish by the petitioner on the specified dates. (vi) The petitioner and the Respondent No. 7 have to assist the Advocate Commissioner in all respects. (vii) The learned Advocate Commissioner fee is fixed at Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) to be paid by the petitioner directly to him. (viii) The petitioner shall provide a comfortable vehicle for transportation of the learned Advocate Commissioner on the specified dates and to bear all other incidental expenses to be incurred by the learned Advocate Commissioner. (ix) The Registry is directed to serve order copy to the learned Advocate Commissioner forthwith through whatsapp. (x) The learned Advocate Commissioner shall file report before the Registrar (Judicial), High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Amaravati, on or before 15.12.2021. 11. There shall be no order as to costs. 12. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in this case shall stand closed.