ORDER : Tarlada Rajasekhar Rao, J. The present writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief: “…to issue an appropriate Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari a)Declaring the actions of the 1st to 11th Respondents in willfully failing to follow the statutory mandate under AP State Aquaculture Development Authority Act and Rules and initiating the Impugned proceedings purely to protect the political interests of the 12th and 13th Respondents as illegal, arbitrary, unjust, unconstitutional and in gross violation of Principles of Natural Justice and Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Indian Constitution; b) Declaring the action of the 5th Respondent in issuing the Notice dated 02.07.2024 and the consequential Notice No. 01/2024 i.e., Notice to the Licensee for seizure and forfeiture of the stock, dated 06.08.2024, to be illegal, arbitrary, unjust, unconstitutional and in gross violation of Principles of Natural Justice and Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Indian Constitution. c) Consequentially, quash and setaside the Notice dated 02.07.2024 issued by the 5th Respondent and the consequential Notice No. 01/2024 i.e.. Notice to the Licensee for seizure and forfeiture of the stock dt.06.08.2024 issued by the 5th Respondent, as illegal, arbitrary, unjust, unconstitutional and in gross violation of Principles of Natural Justice and Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Indian Constitution…” 2. Heard Sri Unnam Akhil Chowdary, learned counsel representing Sri Unnam Sravan Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Fisheries; Sri Yelisetti Somaraju, learned Standing Counsel; learned Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj and Rural Development; learned Government Pleader for Agriculture; and Sri K.S.Murthy, learned designed Senior Counsel; appearing for the respective respondents. 3. On an application made by the respondents 12 and 13 in the writ petition for initiation an action against the petitioner’s aquaculture on the ground to make sure that the brackish water is not introduced into the fresh water pond or reservoir, a show cause notice, dated 02.07.2024 was issued by the fisheries department to the petitioner herein calling for explanation. Following the same, the petitioner herein has submitted his explanation on 09.07.2024. Following the same, the petitioner herein has submitted his explanation on 09.07.2024. Thereafter, the 5th respondent passed the final orders with the following observation: “Basing on the above observations and grounds and in exercise of the powers conferred under Rule 25(2) of the APSADA Rules, 2020, the seizure and the forfeiture of the stock as mentioned above is hereby implemented in the presence of the Designated Committee Members appointed for the purpose.” 4. Assailing the said order dated 06.08.2024 of the 5th respondent, the fisheries department, the present writ petition is came to be filed on several grounds one such ground is that the petitioner has not followed the procedure as contemplated under the A.P.State Aquaculture Development Authority Act 2020 or Act 29 of 2020, while passing the impugned proceedings. 5. Be that as it may, learned Designated Senior Counsel Sri K.S.Murthy, appearing on behalf of the respondents 12 and 13, would raise the maintainability/entertainability of the writ petition. The learned Senior Counsel contends that under Section 35 of the Act 29 of 2020 with Rule 27 of the A.P. State Aquaculture Development Authority Rules 2020 (For brevity ‘Rules’), the petitioner is provided with an efficacious and alternative remedy by way of an appeal to the appellate authority against the order of the 5th respondent i.e., the Fisheries Development Officer and the petitioner has resorted to invoke the writ jurisdiction unless the order impugned has been delivered/transmitted inviolation of natural justice or the impugned proceedings is wholly without jurisdiction, the writ petition is not maintainable. 6. It is relevant to extract Section 35 of the Act 29 of 2020: 35. Appeal: (1) Any person/firm aggrieved by the decision of the licensing authority, may within 30 days from the date on which the decision is communicated to him/her/it and on payment of such fees as may be prescribed, prefer an appeal to the Aquaculture Controller. Provided that the appellate authority may entertain an appeal after the expiry of the said period of 30 days if it is satisfied that appellant was prevented by sufficient cause before filing the appeal in time. (2) xxx (3) xxx Rules 27 delineate the procedure to be followed by the aquaculture controller/Appellate Authority in disposing the appeal. 7. Provided that the appellate authority may entertain an appeal after the expiry of the said period of 30 days if it is satisfied that appellant was prevented by sufficient cause before filing the appeal in time. (2) xxx (3) xxx Rules 27 delineate the procedure to be followed by the aquaculture controller/Appellate Authority in disposing the appeal. 7. Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that an appeal was filed by respondents 12 and 13 along with the villagers under Section 35 of the Act 29 of 2020 and the same is pending before the appellate authority and he seeks a direction to dispose of the appeal which is filed to cancel the license granted to the petitioner, that both appeals may be disposed since the issue in these matters are similar. 8. According to petitioner’s counsel, to establish a pipe was put in place to drain the water from aquaculture ponds, preventing it from being introduced into fresh water ponds or reservoir/s, evidence is required to believe a contention that is based on fact. 9. In fact that against the impugned order an appeal under Section 35 of the Act 29 of 2020 lies to Aquaculture Controller/Appellate Authority and it is equivalently true that a remedy under Act 226 of the Constitution of India being general, discretionary the High Court may refuse when there exists an alternative remedy equally, efficient and adequate unless good grounds therefor. When a statute creates a right or remedy or procedure resort must be had to that particular statutory remedy. 10. It is the sum and substance of the case of the unofficial respondents 12 and 13 that the petitioner is doing a tiger prawn aquaculture business and which can be done only through salt water and not by the sweet water and the petitioner has submitted a representation, dated 26.09.2024 to the fisheries department which manifestly disclose that the petitioner is doing tiger prawn business in the aquaculture pond and he was granted license for the fresh water aquaculture not for the salt water aquaculture. 11. Learned counsel representing the petitioner ensured that brackish water was not allowed to enter the ponds or reservoirs or any water cultivating from the pond of the petitioner aquaculture into the drinking water sources used by the villagers. 12. 11. Learned counsel representing the petitioner ensured that brackish water was not allowed to enter the ponds or reservoirs or any water cultivating from the pond of the petitioner aquaculture into the drinking water sources used by the villagers. 12. In the above facts and circumstances and as per the submissions made by the respective counsels for the petitioner and respondents and it is also a fact that an appeal was filed by the respondents 11 and 12 in the writ petition and the same is pending before the appellate authority and to avoid conflicting of decision and the dispute can be only resolved upon the appreciation of evidence hence, this Court declines to interfere when a statutory remedy of appeal is provided under the Act 29 of 2020. 13. Hence, the present writ petition is disposed of directing or relegating the writ petitioner to avail the remedy of appeal as provided under Act 29 of 2020 and the appellate authority/Aquaculture Controller shall dispose of the appeal strictly as contemplated under Section 35 of the Act and Rule 27 of Aquaculture Rules. The respondents are directed to maintain status quo till disposal of the appeal. The appeal shall be disposed within two months from the date of receipt of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.