Nalabothu Swarna Devi, vs The State Rep. By Its Principal ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 944 AP

               HE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.GANGA RAO

                     Writ Petition No. 4668 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 grievance of the petitioner is that she is the owner and

possessor of land in an extent of Ac.3.30 cents in R.S.No.281-7, 281-2 of

Koppukonda village,Vinukonda Mandal, Guntur District. The subject land

was converted into fish tanks before she purchased the same. When the

authorities did not consider her application for regularization, she filed

W.P.No.11834 of 2020 along with eight others. 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.

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 her 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 and it is 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 passed the impugned order 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 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,

submission 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 is the person who is created

under the provisions of the Act and rules made thereunder are competent

to issue license or reject the proposal but not the 2nd respondent. As

contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the impugned

proceedings are passed belatedly and obtaining reports behind the back

of the petitioner and in violation of the principles of natural justice have

merit consideration. In view of the latest enactment of the Act, the 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

reference 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. Accordingly, the same is set

aside.

6. The petitioner states that he is cultivating fresh water fish culture

and not causing any damage to the environment and the crop is ready for

harvesting. Now, if the application of the petitioner is rejected, there is

every likelihood of damage to the crop, which is ready for harvesting. The

petitioner has to submit application for license/registration of her existing

fish tank. As per the provision of 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 crop 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. The

Writ petition is disposed of accordingly.

7. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.

_______________________ JUSTICE M.GANGA RAO

22-02-2022 CSR

(Issue CC by 25.02.2022) B/o CSR

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.GANGA RAO

Writ Petition No. 4668 of 2022

22-02-2022

CSR