IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH : AMARAVATI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUP KUMAR GOSWAMI, CHIEF JUSTICE
&
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. PRAVEEN KUMAR
WRIT APPEAL No.329 of 2020
(Taken up through video conferencing)
Paturi Venkata Sathyanarayana,
S/o. Late Sri Ramaiah, Aged about 65 years,
Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Veleru Village,
Bapulapadu Mandal, Krishna District, and others.
.. Appellants
Versus
The Commissioner of Fisheries,
Bandar Road, Poranki, Vijayawada,
Krishna District, and others.
.. Respondents
Counsel for the appellants : Mr. G. Vijaya Babu Counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 5 : GP for Fisheries Counsel for respondent No.6 : Mr. I. Koti Reddy Counsel for respondent No.7 : Mr. N. Subba Rao Counsel for respondent No.8 : Mr. T. Singaiah Goud ORAL JUDGMENT Dt: 01.03.2021 per Arup Kumar Goswami, CJ Heard Mr. G. Vijaya Babu, learned counsel for the appellants. Also heard learned Government Pleader for Fisheries for respondent Nos.1 to 5, Mr. I. Koti Reddy, learned counsel for respondent No.6, Mr. N. Subba Rao, learned counsel for respondent No.7 and Mr. T. Singaiah Goud, learned counsel for respondent No.8. 2
This appeal is directed against an order dated 27.08.2020 passed in W.P.No.9079 of 2020 by a learned single Judge, disposing of the writ petition filed by the appellants herein.
The relevant portion of the order reads as under:
"However, if the petitioners have any grievance, they are at liberty to approach the 1st respondent- Commissioner of Fisheries, Government of Andhra Pradesh by way of appeal along with necessary documents in support of their contention for consideration by the Commissioner within a period of ten (10) days from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. On such appeal being made, the 1st respondent- Commissioner of Fisheries is directed to consider the same within a period of four (4) weeks thereafter on its own merits as per law without reference to any delay and communicate the order to the petitioners."
The appeal was listed on 08.10.2020 and as the learned counsel for the appellants was not available at the video conferencing, the same was adjourned. Thereafter, the case is listed today for consideration.
Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the Commissioner of Fisheries, Andhra Pradesh, is a member of the District Level Committee, which had granted provisional registration to the 7th respondent to dig fresh water fish tanks, and, therefore, filing of appeal before the same authority would be an empty formality. It is also submitted that since there is violation of principles of natural justice, learned single Judge ought to have entertained the writ petition despite the availability of alternative remedy.
So far as the first submission is concerned, the constitution of District Level Committee itself demonstrates that the Commissioner of 3 Fisheries is not a member of the District Level Committee, which is headed by the District Collector as Chairman. Therefore, the submission fails.
Learned counsel for the appellants may be correct in submitting that availability of alternative remedy may not always be a bar for entertainment of a writ petition in case there is violation of principles of natural justice. However, whether to exercise jurisdiction in such an event will depend on a host of factors.
It appears that the objections raised by the writ petitioners were considered and rejected on 29.02.2020. The learned single Judge, on perusal of the materials on record, had also observed that the appellants- writ petitioners had not filed any documentary evidence in support of their contentions that the lands are double crop wet lands fit for raising paddy, sugarcane and other crops and not fit for a fish tank, and accordingly, declined to exercise discretion in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
In that view of the matter, we are not inclined to interfere with the order of the learned single Judge.
However, since the time stipulated for filing of appeal in terms of the order of the learned single Judge has already expired, we provide that if the appeal is filed within a period of two weeks from today, the same shall be entertained and considered by the appellate authority in the light of the directions issued by the learned single Judge.
Accordingly, the Writ Appeal stands disposed of. No costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
ARUP KUMAR GOSWAMI, CJ C. PRAVEEN KUMAR, J
IBL
4
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUP KUMAR GOSWAMI, CHIEF JUSTICE & HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. PRAVEEN KUMAR WRIT APPEAL No.329 of 2020 (Per Arup Kumar Goswami, CJ) Dt: 01.03.2021 IBL