THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.GANGA RAO
Writ Petition No.6418 of 2022
ORDER:
Heard Sri Prabhunath Vasireddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Fisheries. With their consent, the writ petition is being disposed of at the admission stage.
2. The case of the petitioner is that she is the owner and possessor of land in an extent of Ac.1.86 cents in R.S.No.224-4, 281/120 and 281/121A of Koppukonda Village. She is doing aquaculture in the said land, which was converted into fish tanks before she purchased the same. When the authorities tried to interfere with the petitioner's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the fish tanks pending consideration of the application filed for regularization, she along with eight others filed W.P.No.11834 of 2020. This Court disposed of the same on 01.09.2020 directing the respondents 2 to 4 therein to consider the applications submitted by the petitioners, basing on the report submitted by the 4th respondent dated 21.07.2017 or any fresh report if required and also in view of G.O.Ms.No.7, dated 16.03.2013 and G.O.Ms.No.15, dated 26.05.2015 and as per law, and pass appropriate orders, within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of that order, by duly giving notices to the petitioners. It is made clear that until the above exercise is completed, the respondent- authorities therein are directed not to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the fish tanks of the petitioners. But the same was considered belatedly by the 2nd respondent and rejected the same by the impugned proceedings dated 14.02.2022. Being aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition came to be filed.
2
3. Sri Prabhunath Vasireddy, learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the impugned order is passed obtaining reports behind the back of the petitioner and no opportunity was given to put-forth his case and the long pending application of the year 2017 is now considered, without reference to the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.11834 of 2020. In view of the latest legislation of the Andhra Pradesh Aquaculture Development Authority Act, 2020 (in short "the Act") and the Rules made thereunder, the authorities are created and also guidelines were framed to consider the applications and the 2nd respondent is neither the Aquaculture controlling authority nor licensing authority. The impugned order is passed contrary to the provisions of Sub-section (3) of Section 23 and also Section 19 of the Act. He further contends that instead of referring the application of the petitioner or rejecting the petitioner's application asking the petitioner to approach the competent authority under the new enactment, the impugned order rejecting the petitioner's application is passed at the instance of the local political people. He further contends that the petitioner took up the rearing of fresh water fish in the fresh water only and is not causing any damage to the environment or pollution in the village. There are no complaints made against the petitioner by the villagers or anybody. Further, learned counsel contends that the impugned order is passed without jurisdiction.
4. Per contra, the learned Government Pleader for Fisheries would contend that as directed by this Court in W.P.No.11834 of 2020, the application of the petitioner was considered based on the report submitted by the authorities referring to various judgments of the Apex Court and this Court and passed a very elaborate order running into 40 3 pages dealing with all the aspects of environment. There is no illegality or irregularity in passing the impugned order.
5. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions of the learned counsel and on perusal of the record, this court found that the impugned order passed by the 2nd respondent is without jurisdiction and authority. Licensing authority, who is created under the provisions of the Act and rules made thereunder, is competent to issue license or reject the proposal but not the 2 nd respondent. The contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned proceedings are issued belatedly and after obtaining reports behind the back of the petitioner and in violation of the principles of natural justice merit consideration. In view of the latest enactment of the Act, the Chief Executive Officer or any officer empowered by him shall be the Aquaculture Controller. The District Collector - Chairman of the District Level Implementation Committee is having authority to pass the impugned order. However, the impugned order is passed in violation of the principles of natural justice and contrary to the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.11834 of 2020 and found to be illegal and arbitrary. The references given in the impugned order reveals that no notice and opportunity was given to the petitioner. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 14.02.2022 is liable to be set aside and the same is set aside.
6. The petitioner states that she is cultivating fresh water fish culture and not causing any damage to the environment and the aqua farm is ready for harvesting. Now, if the application of the petitioner is rejected, there is every likelihood of damage to the aqua farm, which is ready for harvesting. The petitioner has to submit application for license/registration of her existing fish tank. As per the provision of 4 Section 22 of the Act read with Rule 12 (6) of the Rules, the petitioner has to submit application for license/registration to conduct aquaculture. As per sub-Rule (7) of Rule 22 of the Act, the license has to be issued within 15 days from the date of application, otherwise it shall be deemed that the license is issued. Thus, the petitioner is given liberty to submit application within one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and on submission of such application, the authorities concerned are directed to consider the application as per law and pass appropriate orders and communicate the same to the petitioner. Since, the petitioner has already reared the fish in the fish tank and the aqua farm is ready for harvesting, the petitioner is permitted to catch the fish in the tanks within a period of thirty (30) days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. If the petitioner further carries fish culture, without obtaining license/registration, the authorities are at liberty to take appropriate action as per the provisions of law.
7. The Writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs.
As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.
___________________ JUSTICE M.GANGA RAO 15.03.2022 Vjl 5 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.GANGA RAO Writ Petition No.6418 of 2022 15-03-2022 Vjl