IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI, J.
Tumalapalli Vinay Veerabahdra Rao – Appellant
Versus
The State of Andhra Pradesh Rep., by it’s Principal Secretary – Respondent
Writ Petition No.15981 of 2021
Decided on : 12-08-2021
Andhra Pradesh State Aquaculture Development Authority Rules, 2020 – Rule 12 –Andhra Pradesh State Aquaculture Development Authority Act, 2020 – Section 22, 23 (5), 23 (7) (a) – Grant of license – Writ petition is filed questioning proceedings of 2nd respondent, rejecting application of petitioner, which is filed seeking grant of license for aquaculture operations, as illegal and arbitrary – Held, First ground of rejection is too vague and this Court is unable to understand meaning of that ground – Even Assistant Government Pleader is unable to explain same – Assuming for a moment that first ground of rejection is on ground that recommendation of Assistant Executive Engineer is not there, he should have given an opportunity to explain or submit same in accordance with Section 23(7) (b) of Act of 2020 – But, same is not done – Basic principle of law is that if manner of doing a particular act is prescribed under any Statute, act must be done in that manner or not at all – Origin of this rule is traceable to decision in Taylor Vs. Taylor (1875) 1 Ch.D. 426 which was followed who stated as under – Writ petition allowed.
ORDER :
This writ petition is filed questioning the proceedings of the 2nd respondent, dated 16.6.2021, rejecting the application of the petitioner, which is filed seeking grant of license for aquaculture operations, as illegal and arbitrary.
2. Case of the petitioner is that,
(b) he filed an application on 16.6.2021 before the 2nd respondent for grant of permission for doing aquaculture in an extent of Ac.2.51 cents
(c) the said application was rejected by the 2nd respondent/District Level Committee on the same day when it was filed, without assigning any cogent reasons and without following the procedure as contemplated under law, which is contrary to Section 23 (7) of the Andhra Pradesh State Aquaculture Development Authority Act, 2020. Challenging the same, the present writ petition is filed.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Animal Husbandry and with their consent this writ petition is disposed at the stage of admission.
4. As seen from the impugned order, petitioner filed an application seeking license/endorsement for Aquaculture Farm on 16.6.2021 and on the same day, the impugned rejection order was passed under Rule 12 of the Andhra Pradesh State Aquaculture Development Authority Rules, 2020 (for short ‘Rules of 2020’). The said rejection order reads as follows;
• Superintending Engineer, I and CAD – Deemed approval without the recommendation of Asst. Executive Engineer Irrigation. Hence recommended for rejection
• Joint Collector Rythu Bharosa – Too many deemed approvals from Mandal Level Committee Members. Hence this application is recommended for rejection.”
5. Section 22 of the Andhra Pradesh State Aquaculture Development Authority Act, 2020 (herein after referred to as ‘the Act of 2020’ ) deals with “Process of issuance of License for doing Aquaculture and the same reads as follows;
(1) All the existing aquaculture farmers who already got licenses/registrations for their farms from Department of Fisheries/CAA/MPEDA shall be eligible for continuation of their licenses/registrations. It is not necessary to apply for license/registration afresh. However, these old licenses/registrations are to be endorsed by the licensing authority of this Act in order to consider them to be issued under this Act.
(2) The licensed/registered aquaculture farmers under sub-section (1), shall submit their details in the prescribed format along with prescribed fee within four (4) months from the appointed date.
(3) The applications received, under sub-section (2) for endorsement of existing licenses/registrations, the process of endorsement shall be completed by the licensing authority within 15 days by following the prescribed procedure.
(4) If acceptance or rejection of application made under sub-section (2) is not issued within the stipulated time of fifteen (15) days, the license shall be deemed to be endorsed.
(5) If any existing aquaculture farmers who have not got license/registered with Department of Fisheries/CAA/MPEDA as on appointed date, shall apply for license in the prescribed format along with license fee within four (4) months from the appointed date.
(6) The license shall be issued by the licensing authority for the applications received under subsections (5) within fifteen (15) days from the date of application.
(7) If acceptance or rejection of application for license made under sub- section(5) is not issued within fifteen (15) days from the date of applic
Asst. Commissioner vs M/S.Shukla & Brothers
Deep Chand Vs. State of Rajasthan 1962 (1) SCR 662 = AIR 1061 SC 1527
Gurdial Singh Fijji v. State of Punjab [(1979) 2 SCC 368]
Nazir Ahmad Vs. King Emperor 63 Indian Appeals 372 = AIR 1936 PC 253
Rao Shiv bahadur Singh & Anr. Vs. State of Vindhya Pradesh 1954 SCR 1098 = AIR 1954 SC 322
State of Maharashtra v. Vithal Rao Pritirao Chawan [(1981) 4 SCC 129]
State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Singhara Singh & ors. AIR 1964 SC 358 = (1964) 1 SCWR 57
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.