Paturi Venkatasathyanarayana, vs The Commissioner Of Fisheries
2021 Latest Caselaw 1231 AP

    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.

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

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

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