ORDER: SUMATHI JAGADAM, J. 1. This writ petition is filed to declare the Memo dated 10.12.2024 issued by the 1 st respondent granting permission to the 5 th respondent for dredging of Navigation Channel in Krishna River under National Waterway-4 from Ibrahimpatnam to Vykuntapuram/Harischandrapuram, as arbitrary and illegal, and consequently, to set aside the same. 2. Facts involved in the case: i) The 1 st petitioner-Sangham is registered vide registration No.321/2019 under the A.P. Societies Registration Act, 2001. Petitioner Nos.2 and 3-Societies are registered under Section 8 of the A.P.Cooperative Societies Act, 1964. The petitioners are owners of boats and eking out their livelihood by removing sand and silt from Krishna river and bringing the stock to the notified points. Originally, the petitioners used to work independently and in order to generate the work and also to avoid competition among equals have formed into registered Societies. ii) The Government has issued G.O.Ms.No.43, Industries & Commerce (Mines-III) Department, dated 08.07.2024, introducing an interim mechanism for sand supply till formulation of Sand Policy, 2024. Clause 6 (III) deals with salient features. Clause 6 (III) (D) deals with de-siltation of reservoirs/tank beds-obtaining clearances and operations. Sub-Clause (iii) of Clause 6 (III) (D) is extracted hereunder for the purpose of the case: “(iii) Water Resources Dept., for de-siltation activities taken up by them in the foreshore areas (water spread area at FTL) of Reservoirs/Barrages/Tanks, shall appoint agencies/boatsman societies for the purpose and DM&GO, with the help of DLSC, shall appoint boatsman societies for de-siltation activities beyond the foreshore areas of Reservoirs/Barrages/Tanks in river course taken by Mines & Geology Department strictly in compliance with all applicable acts, rules and directions of MOEF&CC, Hon’ble NGT, Hon’ble HC & Hon’ble SC.” iii) The petitioners on enquiry came to know that the 5 th respondent approached the Inland Waterways Authority of India ( for short “IWAI”), Ministry of Shipping, Government of India, for no objection for navigational points at three different places. The IWAI, in exercise of power under Article 14(1)(d) of the Inland Waterways Authority of India Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred as "Act, 1985?), has accorded no objection on 09.02.2022 for navigational point of view. On survey, it was found that channels are silted and desiltation is required for free movement of vessels. The IWAI, in exercise of power under Article 14(1)(d) of the Inland Waterways Authority of India Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred as "Act, 1985?), has accorded no objection on 09.02.2022 for navigational point of view. On survey, it was found that channels are silted and desiltation is required for free movement of vessels. The 5 th respondent got registered under the A.P. Shops and Establishments Act, 1988 and applied to IWAI seeking no objection for navigational point of view. The 1 st respondent vide memo dated 10.12.2024 has issued permission to the 5 th respondent for dredging of 5,13,673 cubic meters as proposed and approved by the IWAI. The petitioners strongly contend that the 1 st respondent lacks power and jurisdiction and cannot issue no objection on river conservancy point of view. Questioning the said memo dated 10.12.2024, the present writ petition is filed. 3. The 6 th respondent filed a counter affidavit inter alia contending that the Nodal Agency for National Waterway-4 i.e., the IWAI, Ministry of Ports Shipping and Waterways, Government of India, has a Regional Office in Vijayawada. The NOC issued by IWAI for three routes is purely from a navigation perspective and does not exempt the 5 th respondent from obtaining required clearance from the State Agencies. The letter of the Director, IWAI, Vijayawada, dated 23.12.2021, clearly states that dredging is required for safe movement of vessels and the same has to be carried out by the 5 th respondent without any financial implication to IWAI. The 1 st respondent issued NOC subject to obtaining other clearance from the 6 th respondent. The 6 th respondent further adds that the entire activity will be carried under the supervision of the Central Government Agency and the official respondents will act only under the supervision of the Authority of IWAI which is carried under the supervision of the Government of India. The petitioners have filed the present writ petition without impleading the IWAI as a party respondent, and on this ground alone, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 4. The petitioners have filed the present writ petition without impleading the IWAI as a party respondent, and on this ground alone, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 4. The counsel for the 5 th respondent submits that the competent authority in exercise of power under Article 14(1)(d) of the Act, 1985 has accorded no objection for dredging in respect of three stretches i.e., (1) Ibrahmpatnam to Vykuntapuram/Harischandrapuram, (2) Ibrahimpatnam to Lingayapalem, and (3) Guntupalli to Tallayapalem, and the present stretch of river is covered by Item 1 of the said proceedings. The quantified material of 5,13,673 cubic meters of silt was estimated by IWAI after Bathy Matric survey to clear the silt for smooth movement of Ro-Ro vessels by clarifying that the desiltation activities will be monitored by the IWAI, Vijayawada. The water level for free movement of vessels must be maintained at a depth of 2.25 to 3 meters. The counsel for the 5 th respondent further submits that the google images taken by IWAI clearly show the navigation channel within the blue lines. The 5 th respondent has submitted the design of constructing temporary jetties to IWAI. The 5 th respondent further averts that the cargo movement is necessary in the interest of facilitating the infrastructure in the Amaravathi Capital Region. The main activity of the 5 th respondent is the activity of cargo movement in the land water system and for the writ petitioners, the main source is quarrying of sand. In the letter dated 23.12.2021, the IWAI made it clear that the dredging carried out by the 5 th respondent would be without any financial implication and the same has attained finality. Hence, prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 5. Heard both sides and perused the record. 6. The question involved in the present case is whether the proceedings dated 10.12.2024 issued by the 1 st respondent is valid and sustainable in the eye of law. The said proceedings pertain to granting no objection to the 5 th respondent herein from the river conservancy point of view for dredging the navigation channel in Krishna River from Ibrahimpatnam to Vykuntapuram/Harischandrapuram. 7. In the context, it is relevant to mention statutory regime governing the field and the source of the said power emanating from the Constitution of India, 1950. Item No.30 of List-I of 7 th schedule of the Constitution states as follows: “30. 7. In the context, it is relevant to mention statutory regime governing the field and the source of the said power emanating from the Constitution of India, 1950. Item No.30 of List-I of 7 th schedule of the Constitution states as follows: “30. Carriage of passengers and goods by railway, sea or air, or by national waterways in mechanically propelled vessels.” (emphasis supplied). Item No.32 of list-III of 7 th schedule of the Constitution states as follows: “32. Shipping and navigation on inland water ways as regard mechanically propelled vessels, and the rule of the road such waterways, and the carriage of passengers and goods on inland waterways subject to the provisions of List-I with respect to national waterways.” (emphasis supplied) 8. The Parliament by exercising its legislative power under item No.3 of list-I has enacted the Act, 1985 and again has enacted the National Waterways Act, 2016. 9. By Section 2 of the National Waterways Act, 2016 (Act 16/2016) and by Section 4 of the said Act, the word „National Waterways? has been substituted by replacing earlier expressions. Section 2(h) of earlier Enactment made in 1985 and the substituted Section 2(h) as amended vide Act 17/2016 states as follows: “(h) “National Waterways” means the inland waterway declared by Section 2 of the National Waterways Act, 2016 to be a national waterway. Explanation - if Parliament declares by law any other waterway to be a national waterway, then, from the date on which such declaration takes effect, such other waterways – (i) Shall also be deemed to be a national waterway within the meaning of this clause; and (ii) The provisions of this Act shall, with necessary modifications (including modification for construing any reference to the commencement of this Act as a freference to the date aforesaid), apply to such national waterway.” 10. By virtue of Section 4 of the Act 17 of 2016, a "National Waterway? means the inland waterway declared by Section 2 of the National Waterways Act, 2016 to be a national waterway. 11. By virtue of Section 4 of the Act 17 of 2016, a "National Waterway? means the inland waterway declared by Section 2 of the National Waterways Act, 2016 to be a national waterway. 11. Section 2 of the said Act refers to schedule, and insofar as the present stretch of river, which is the subject matter of the present writ petition, is concerned, the same covers under National Waterways-4 with the boundaries specified from western limit to eastern limit commencing from Galagali village in Karnataka to Prakasam barrage in the State of A.P. On a conspectus reading of entries 30 of list-I and 32 of List-III, it clearly demonstrates that when once the subject stretch of river is declared as part of National Waterway-4, and by virtue of scheme of distribution of legislative powers as envisaged under Article 246, the Act, 1985 amended by the National Waterways Act, 2016 would govern the field, and consequently, by virtue of Article 73 of the Constitution of India, the executive power in respect of Union legislation lies with the Central Government to the extent provided in the central legislation. The 5 th respondent has applied for roll on and roll off services as M/s IOCL, BPCL and HPCL were interested to transfer oil tankers and gas cylinders from Ibrahimpatnam to Vykuntapauram/ Harischandrapuram. On the survey conducted by IWAI, Vijayawada, dated 23.12.2021, it was found that de-siltation is required for movement of vessel under the guise of Ro-Ro activity. 12. Both the petitioners and the respondents have brought the attention of this Court to the proceedings dated 09.02.2022 issued by the Inland Waterways Authority of India, a statutory body incorporated under the Central Act, whereby and where under the Competent Authority has accorded no objection for dredging in respect of three stretches of river as stated therein and the present stretch of river is covered by Item-I of the said proceedings along with the other two stretches of river with which this Court is not concerned in the present writ petition. 13. 13. A perusal of the said proceedings, no doubt, states that the said proceedings have been issued for the purpose of navigation point of view and this Court has examined the provisions of the Act, 1985, Section 2 (d) and 2 (e) of the said Act state as follows:- “(d) “conservancy” includes dredging, training, closure, diversion or abandoning channels; (e) “conservancy measures” means measures for purposes of conservancy, but does not include measures for protection of banks against floods or for restricting banks which have become eroded mainly on account of reasons not connected with shipping and navigation;” 14. On a perusal of the aforesaid definition, the "dredging’ for navigational purpose is a conservancy measure, and on examination of the provisions of Section 14 of the said Act, which empowers the Inland Waterways Authority to carry out certain functions under the said Act, and though the proceedings dated 09.02.2022 refers to Section 14 (1) (d), this Court is of the view that the said proceedings are also referable to Section 14(1)(c) and (e). However, I hasten to add that the writ petitioners have neither questioned the proceedings dated 09.02.2022 nor have impleaded the Government of India or the Inland Waterways Authority of India (IWAI) and as such the present writ petition is not a duly constituted proceedings insofar as proceedings dated 09.02.2022 are concerned. 15. In the aforesaid background, this Court has examined the validity of the impugned proceedings dated 10.12.2024. It appears, the aforesaid proceedings are merely incidental to the proceedings dated 09.02.2022 issued by the Inland Waterways Authority of India. 16. The State Legislature also has enacted the A.P. Inland Waterways Authority Act, 2023 (Act 18/2023), apart from there being pre-constitutional law, such as, A.P. (Andhra Area) River Conservancy Act, 1884 (Act 6/1884). On a bare look to the source of legislative power and in view of the fact that the subject stretch of river is declared as National Waterway-4, the question of any regulatory power under the aforesaid Act is merely incidental to the statutory provisions contained in the Act, 1985 as amended by the Act 17/2016 and to the extent specified therein. 17. This Court has also examined the definition of „conservancy? and the „conservancy measure? under both the Central Act of 1985 and the State Act of 2023, and both appear to be pari materia provisions carrying the same meaning. 17. This Court has also examined the definition of „conservancy? and the „conservancy measure? under both the Central Act of 1985 and the State Act of 2023, and both appear to be pari materia provisions carrying the same meaning. The State Act under Section 2(g) mentions waterway as inland waterway other than national waterway gives the clearest indication that the State Government actions whether legislative or executive are incidental to the powers of legislative or executive conferred under Article 246 R/w 73 of the Constitution of India and in view of the act of regulation of „national waterways? is the complete legislative prerogative of the Union Parliament. 18. On examination of the facts of the present case, in the light of the aforesaid constitutional and statutory provisions, the averments in the counter affidavit of respondent Nos.5 and 6 show that as a result of bathymetric survey conducted in the subject stretch of river, a quantity of 5,13,673 cubic meters of desilted material is identified and the actions of conducting bathymetric survey and the quantity arrived are beyond any pale of doubt as there is a presumption under Section 114 of the Evidence Act that all official acts are assumed to be true and validly performed. 19. This Court has also examined the nature of the activity of the petitioners as compared to the activity of the 5 th respondent and as per the bye-laws of the petitioners-societies, it is clear that the writ petitioners? main source of activity is quarrying of sand, whereas the main activity of the 5 th respondent is the activity of cargo movement in the land water system. 20. After taking note of the averments in the counter-affidavit filed by respondent No.5 that the cargo movement is necessary in the interest of facilitating the infrastructure in the Amaravati Capital Region and the Google map of the blue lines stretch, which is carried out for dredging operation, and from a naked eye, it can be seen that the dredging has to be performed in the thick of river as distinguished from foreshore area or beyond foreshore area. The reliance on the provisions contained in G.O.Ms.No.43 dated 08.07.2024 by the writ petitioners is based on the assumption that the 11 km. The reliance on the provisions contained in G.O.Ms.No.43 dated 08.07.2024 by the writ petitioners is based on the assumption that the 11 km. present stretch of river, as permitted under the proceedings dt.10.12.2024, interferes with their right of excavation of sand is not sustainable, in view of clear Google picture, a blue line stretch is depicted as the epicenter of activity and the full width of river is much larger than the area which is permitted for „dredging’ and as a result, in respect of foreshore area/areas of beyond foreshore area/areas, the rights of the petitioners can be adequately safeguarded. 21. The 5 th respondent has brought out the directions of the National Green Tribunal dated 16.12.2020 which refers to the prohibition of mechanically propelled boats being used for excavation purposes. The said restriction applies to both the petitioners-societies and respondent No.5, and the 5 th respondent having fairly pointed out the aforesaid aspect, has to stick on to the aspect of environmental protection and should adhere to the directions of the National Green Tribunal as referred to in the proceedings dated 16.12.2020. 22. On a reading of the averments in the writ petition as well as the counter-affidavits of respondents Nos.5 and 6, this Court is of the view that while the petitioners assert that their claim is based on their right to livelihood under Article 21, the set of facts and circumstances as pleaded and demonstrated by both sides by virtue of material being filed would clearly demonstrate that by an authority which has an exclusive power to do a specific act, the actions are being emanated, such as, proceedings dated 09.02.2022 and at the cost of repetition, this Court holds that the said proceedings have attained finality as the said proceedings are not under challenge in the present writ petition. 23. This Court has also taken into consideration the permissions granted by the State authorities under various other enactments to fortify the contention that the 5 th respondent is being projected into the subject stretch of river by a valid legislative and executive action which cannot be interfered with. 24. This Court has taken into consideration the proceedings issued by the A.P. Pollution Control Board, dated 05.02.2025 and 25.02.2025 issued under the Environmental Protection Act, 1986 which takes care of environmental concerns. 25. 24. This Court has taken into consideration the proceedings issued by the A.P. Pollution Control Board, dated 05.02.2025 and 25.02.2025 issued under the Environmental Protection Act, 1986 which takes care of environmental concerns. 25. This Court has perused the proceedings dated 16.03.2025 issued by the Collector and District Magistrate, Guntur, addressed to the 5 th respondent and Condition-E of the said proceedings stipulates that the 5 th respondent shall charge the consumers at Rs.215/- per metric ton as sand supply cost and shall not charge more than the amount fixed by the District Level Sand Committee and the said condition apart from other conditions shall be scrupulously adhered to by the 5 th respondent. 26. This Court has taken note of the contention of the writ petitioners that on earlier occasions tenders were issued by the Central Authority as well as the State Authority and insofar as the said contention against the Central Authority is concerned, the proceedings dated 09.02.2022 were issued by the Inland Waterways Authority of India without any financial implications and the said authority is not a party to the writ petition nor the said proceedings are under challenge. Insofar as the contention against the State Government is concerned, it is based on validity or otherwise of the policy parameters contained in G.O.Ms.No.43 dated 08.07.2024 issued by the State of A.P. and cannot be gone into in the present writ petition in the absence of any challenge to the aforesaid G.O., and hence, the said contention is not sustainable in the eye of law. 27. This Court has also taken note of the averments in Para-14 of the counter affidavit of the 6 th respondent, wherein it is stated that the writ petitioners are not precluded from applying for desilting permissions in other parts of the river as per State Government policy contained in G.O.Ms.No.43, dated 08.07.2024, and as amended from time to time. 28. For the reasons aforementioned, the Writ Petition lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall also stand closed.