ORDER:- Heard Sri Sriram Krishna Murthy, learned counsel representing Sri Laxmana Chari, learned counsel for writ petitioners, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue representing respondents 1 to 3, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Irrigation representing respondents 4 and 5 and Sri Roy Reddy, learned counsel representing 6th respondent,

2. This Court on 4.1.2008 made the following order:

"Learned Government Pleader for Irrigation and Command Area Development seeks time for getting instructions.

Post after Sankranthi Vacation, 2008.

In the meanwhile, there shall be a direction that the petitioners shall be supplied water as they were supplied till 14.11.2007".

3. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Irrigation had placed before this Court para-wise written instructions obtained by her. The 6th respondent filed WVMP No.76 of 2008 to vacate the interim order. Reply affidavit also is filed by the first petitioner. At the request of the counsel on record, the Writ Petition itself is being disposed of finally.

4. Sri Sriram Krishna Murthy, learned counsel representing Sri Laxmana Chari, learned counsel for the writ petitioners had taken this Court through the contents of the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition, the counter affidavit and also the reply affidavit and also would maintain that in the light of the facts and circumstances and also the prior orders made in this regard, the change of pattern is impermissible. The learned counsel also had taken this Court through the specific averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition and would maintain that because of this hasty resolution, which is not in accordance with law, the Ayacutdars would be seriously affected and a representation relating to the same had already been submitted to the 1st respondent and hence in the facts and circumstances of the case let the 1st respondent take appropriate decision in this regard.

5. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Irrigation would submit that the petitioners are having an effective alternative remedy by way of appeal under Section 41-A(4) of A.P. Farmers' Management of Irrigation Systems Act, 1997, hereinafter in short referred to as Act for the purpose of convenience. The learned counsel also had pointed to Section 41-B of the said Act and would maintain that in the light of the same, the factual controversies raised in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition cannot be effectively gone into by a writ Court. The learned counsel also pointed out to the para-wise remarks obtained by her.

6. On the contrary Sri Roy Reddy, learned counsel representing the 6th respondent had taken this Court through the contents of the counter affidavit and would maintain that several facts had been suppressed and in fact the first petitioner also was a party to the Resolution and he had signed the same and having signed the Resolution, now the first writ petitioner cannot sworn to the affidavit in support of this Writ Petition and file the present Writ Petition and it would amount to suppression of fact. Further, the learned counsel would maintain that the Writ Petition itself is not maintainable since this Court cannot decide such questions. The learned counsel placed strong reliance on certain decisions in this regard. Further, the learned counsel would point out that under Section 41-B of the Act, the petitioners are having an effective alternative remedy. Hence, viewed from any angle, the Writ Petition is not maintainable. Further, the learned counsel would submit that the prior orders, which had been relied upon, would not help the writ petitioners in any way since much water had flown subsequent thereto and in the light of the subsequent changes and in the interest of the concerned agriculturists, Ayacutdars, the present decision had been taken and in fact the same had been approved even by th

Click Here to Read the rest of this document