Vangavolu Bramaramba vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh
2022 Latest Caselaw 1329 AP

                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.

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

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

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

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.GANGA RAO

Writ Petition No.6418 of 2022

15-03-2022

Vjl