BOTCHA YERUKU NAIDU Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR SRIKAKULAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Sri Taddi Nageswara Rao, the learned Counsel representing the writ petitioner, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Irrigation and Sri vinod Reddy, the learned Counsel representing respondent Nos. 1 to 5 and respondent Nos. 6 to 9 respectively.

(2.) SRI Taddi Nageswara Rao, the learned Counsel representing the writ petitioner had taken this Court through the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the averments made thereunder and also had taken this Court through the relevant provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Farmers Management of irrigation Systems Act 1997 (Act 11 of 1997), (hereinafter, in short, referred to as 'the Act' for the purpose of convenience), in general and Section 36 of the Act in particular. The learned Counsel also pointed out that in the light of the clear language of Section 36 of the Act, the stands taken in the respective counter affidavits cannot be sustained. The learned Counsel also would maintain that in this case though the Vice-President was not elected, due nomination was made and hence, the committee constituted cannot be said to be either defective or defunct and in the light of the same, the stands taken by the respective respondents cannot be sustained. While elaborating his submissions, the learned Counsel also had drawn the attention of this Court to rule 14 in G. O. Ms. (P ). No. 47, Irrigation and Command Area Development (CAD. IV)Department, dated 04. 04. 2003, the Andhra Pradesh Farmers Management of irrigation Systems (Conduct of Elections) Rules, 2003, (hereinafter, in short, referred to as "rules" for the purpose of convenience), and would submit that these Rules are meant for the specific purpose and at any rate, as far as invalidity of the committee is concerned, the said Rule cannot override Section 36 of the Act.

(3.) ON the contrary, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for irrigation had drawn the attention of this Court to the object of the Act and also placed strong reliance on G. O. Ms. No. 68, dated 13. 06. 2005. While further elaborating her submissions, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for irrigation also had drawn the attention of this Court to the proceedings dated 26. 12. 2003 and in particular, placed strong reliance on Rules 14 and 23 of the rules, referred to supra, and would maintain that in the interest of the farmers in general, the said action had been taken and hence, the same cannot be found fault. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Irrigation also would contend that when due representation is not given to the persons belonging to the other reach, the very object of the Act would be defeated and hence, in the facts and circumstances, there is no substance in the writ petition and the same is liable to be dismissed.