HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY W.P.No.32217 of 2014 Date : 16-12-2014 Between:
Marine & Inland Fishermen Cooperative Society Ltd., represented by its President, Katadi Satyam ..
Petitioner And State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Principal Secretary, Animal Husbandry, Dairy Development & Fisheries Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others ..
Respondents Counsel for petitioner : Mr. N. Siva Reddy Counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3 : Government Pleader for Fisheries (AP) Counsel for respondent No.4 : Mrs. A. Malathi, Standing Counsel The Court made the following :
ORDER:
This Writ Petition is filed for a mandamus to declare the action of respondent No.4 in not leasing out the fish tanks in Bhogamdani Cheruvu (Chandra Sekhar Vihara Tank), Kulai Cheruvu (Raja Tank), Santha Market Cheruvu and Annamma Ghati Cheruvu situated in the municipal limits of respondent No.4-Corporation in favour of the petitioner in terms of G.O.Ms.No.776, Food & Agriculture (Fish-II) Department, dated 31-12-1990, as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner sought for a consequential direction to respondent No.4 to lease out fishing rights in the said fish tanks in terms of the above mentioned G.O.
The petitioner, which is a Fishermen Co-operative Society registered in the year 1959 has the limits of respondent No.4-Municipal Corporation as its area of operation. The petitioner pleaded that before Kakinada Municipality was converted into Municipal Corporation in the year 2005, the erstwhile municipality used to grant the leasehold rights of fishing in all the four tanks situated within its limits to the petitioner; that during the last 33 years, the petitioner has been exercising leasehold rights by enhancing the lease amount by 33 1/3% of the existing lease amount once in every three years; that on 31-12-2002 the erstwhile Kakinada Municipality has cancelled the fishing lease on the ground that the Municipality wanted to take up developmental programmes in those tanks; that no developmental programmes were taken up by the erstwhile Municipality and that after upgradation of the Municipality into Municipal Corporation, the petitioner requested respondent No.4 to lease out the tanks to it; that when no action was taken on the said request, the petitioner filed W.P.No.13293 of 2006 and that during the pendency of the said Writ Petition, respondent No.4 has granted leasehold rights to the petitioner over all the four tanks for a block period of three years from 2006-2009. That respondent No.4 has again stopped granting leasehold rights of fishing to the petitioner from 2009 Fasli onwards on the ground that the Municipality is proposing to take up developmental works. The petitioner specifically averred that no developmental works have been taken up by respondent No.4 till now.
In the above background, the petitioner represented to respondent No.4 in the month of June 2014 for grant of leasehold rights atleast from the ensuing Fasli as per G.O.Ms.No.766, dated 31-12-1990 and in pursuance of the said request, respondent No.4 has addressed letter dated 5- 8-2014 to respondent No.3 requesting him to furnish the guidelines of the Government in leasing out the fishing rights in the tanks belonging to respondent No.4. Respondent No.3 vide his letter dated Rc.No.566/A4/2006, dated 19-8- 2014 addressed to respondent No.4 informed that the petitioner-society is entitled to be given leasehold rights of fishing as per G.O.Ms.No.776, dated 31-12-1990. As no further action has been taken by respondent No.4 after receiving the said communication from respondent No.3, the petitioner filed this Writ Petition.
This Court has adjourned the case on three occasions to enable the learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.4 to get instructions. Today, the learned Standing Counsel has submitted that the District Collector, Kakinada who is the ex-officio Special Officer of respondent No.4-Municipal Corporation in the absence of an elected body, has orally instructed respondent No.4 not to grant lease of fishing rights in view of the proposal to develop the tanks. Neither a counter affidavit to this effect has been filed by respondent No.4 nor any written instructions in this regard have been received by the learned Standing Counsel.
The above mentioned uncontroverted facts would show that the fishing rights were not leased out from the year 2003 by the erstwhile Municipality in the name of development of the tanks. Even respondent No.4 has also continued the same policy except during the brief period between 2006 and 2009, during which it has granted leasehold rights to the petitioner. The petitioner specifically stated that no developmental works in respect of any of the four tanks have been taken up either by the erstwhile Municipality or by respondent No.4.
It is not in dispute that as per G.O.Ms.No.776, dated 31-12-1990, fishermen co-operative societies are entitled to be given leasehold rights in respect of the water tanks situated within the jurisdiction of the local bodies. The grant of fishing rights to fishermen co-operative societies is an ameliorative step for the welfare of the fishermen community. Such a measure also helps augmentation of revenue of the local body. Therefore, keeping the tanks idle in the name of development without actually undertaking development activity renders the above mentioned twin objectives otiose.
In the above facts and circumstances of the case, respondent No.4 is directed to forthwith consider the petitioner’s request for grant of fishing rights over the above mentioned four tanks within its jurisdiction strictly in terms of G.O.Ms.No.776, Food & Agriculture (Fish-II) Department, dated 31-12-1990 and communicate its decision to the petitioner within three weeks from the date of receipt of this order.
Subject to the above directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of.
As a sequel to the disposal of the Writ Petition, WPMP No.40278 of 2014 filed for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous.
Justice C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy Date : 16-12-2014 AM