HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY W.P.No.16842 of 2014 Date : 21-10-2014 Between:
Bommireddy Raghava Prasad .. Petitioner And Government of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Principal Secretary, Fisheries Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad and others ..
Respondents Counsel for petitioner : Sri T.V.S. Prabhakar Rao Counsel for respondents : Government Pleader for Fisheries (AP) The Court made the following :
ORDER:
At the Interlocutory stage, the Writ Petition is taken up for hearing and disposal with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties.
This Writ Petition is filed for a mandamus to set-aside letter No.534/A4/2014, dated 6-6-2014 of the Fresh Water Aqua Culture District Level Committee, East Godavari District, headed by respondent No.2.
A perusal of the impugned order shows that the petitioner’s application No.0917 dated 18-11-2013 made for regularisation of fresh water aqua culture being carried on by him was rejected on the purported objections raised by the Mandal Level Committee.
The learned Government Pleader for Fisheries has not disputed that the purported objections raised by the Mandal Level Committee were not communicated to the petitioner. However, in the counter-affidavit, several reasons have been mentioned in support of the impugned order.
As rightly pointed out by Sri T.V.S. Prabhakar Rao, his client is disabled from effectively questioning the impugned order in the absence of reasons furnished in support thereof and that therefore the impugned order is liable to be set- aside on this ground alone.
I n Commissioner of Police, Bombay Vs.
[1]
Gordhandas Bhanji , the Supreme Court held that the decision of an executive authority cannot be supported by supplementing reasons in the affidavits. This ratio was followed by the Supreme Court in Mohinder Singh Gill Vs.
[2]
Chief Election Commissioner As rightly submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, by failing to mention the reasons for rejection of the petitioner’s application, the respondents have disabled the petitioner from effectively challenging the said order. Following the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in the above mentioned two Judgments, the impugned order is set-aside. Respondent No.2 is directed to reconsider the petitioner’s application after supplying all the relevant material on which he is seeking to place reliance and pass a speaking order afresh within two months from the date of receipt of this order.
The Writ Petition is accordingly allowed to the extent indicated above. It is however made clear that this order will not preclude the respondents from preventing aqua culture activity, if any being carried on by the petitioner unlawfully.
As a sequel to the disposal of the Writ Petition, WPMP No.20946 of 2014 and WVMP No.2701 of 2014 are disposed of as infructuous.
Justice C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy Date : 21-10-2014 AM
[1] AIR 1952 SC 16
[2] (1978) 1 SCC 405