( 1 ) AS a prologue to this judgment, we may say that notwithstanding the doctrine of judicial Restraint and considerations of justiciability of the issues involved in this case, as a Constitutional court, entrusted with the solemn duty to prevent infringement of fundamental rights and human rights, we have heard the learned Counsel for the appellants for a considerable length of time. The reason is that, judicial activism propels us into the arena of prohibited area, though realszation is subliminal in judicial mind that our greatest weakness is our unbounded strength gushing out from Article 226 of the constitution of India.

( 2 ) THE unsuccessful petitioners in the writ petition are the appellants before us. The writ petition filed by them pro bono publico met the waterloo at the threshold. The learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition (reported in 2000 (3) ALD 182) taking a view that the situation on hand is not a judicially manageable one, and that the Court is not properly equipped to adjudicate the lis concerning the release of water from an irrigation project for the second Rabi crop mainly in Nellore District. Facts are not in dispute; but perceptions are. Hence, let us notice the facts to the extent necessary.

( 3 ) THE parties herein are referred to as per their status in the writ petition. The petitioners approached this Court praying for a declaration that the action of the respondents-Government of A. P. , District collector-cum-Chairman, Irrigation development Board, Nellore, Superintending engineer, Irrigation Circle, Nellore, superintending Engineer, Somasila Project, nellore, and Chief Engineer, Telugu Ganga project, Srikalahasthi, in deciding not to release water from Somasila Project for the second crop for the Pennar Delta Ayacutdars, as illegal, arbitrary, unjust apart from being violative of constitutional guarantees adumbrated in Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and for consequential directions, to forthwith release water for the second Rabi crop in Pennar Delta.

( 4 ) AS disclosed in the affidavit, accompanying the writ petition, it is the case of the petitioners that for stabilising the ayacut of Pennar Delta, comprising Nellore and Sangam ayacuts, the Somasila Project was conceived and completed in 1972. The project is designed for supplying irrigation water to 1,75,000 acres in Pennar Delta for first crop (Khariff), and 19,000 acres for second crop (Rabi ). North Feeder Channel, kavali Canal, South Feeder Channel and kanpur Canal form part of the irrigation system under the Somasila Project, which is designed to have a storage capacity of 78 tmc (Trillion Cubic Meters ). As per the project report, the ayacutdars of Pennar delta are entitled for supply of water from august. However, water for Khariff season during 1999-2000 for the ayacutdars of pennar Delta was released only for 1,14,000 acres instead of 1,75,0000 acres on the ground that there is insufficient of water, that too from October, 1999. Due to unseasonal rain and flash floods during february, 2000, the farmers, who raised khariff crops suffered huge cumulative losses to the extent of Rs. 150-00 crores. The inaction on the part of the respondents in not releasing the water for Khariff crop as per schedule in August, 1999, contributed this. If water had been released in time, the crop would have been harvested by january, 2000, thereby avoiding the wrath of the nature. The State Government ought to have taken corrective steps having regard to the loss of Khariff crop, but the second respondent-Irrigation Development board took a decision as published in the newspaper the Hindu on 30-3-2000 that no second crop would be permitted under pennar Delta this year . This is contrary to the determined and established rights as the ayacutdars of the Pennar Delta are entitled to 3. 702 TMC of water for the second crop as a matter of right. Therefore, they filed the writ petition.

( 5 ) IT is t