IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
M. Ganga Rao, J.
Kalidindi Balarama Raju – Appellant
Versus
The State of Andhra Pradesh – Respondent
Writ Petition No.103 of 2021
Decided On : 18-11-2022
Constitution of India, 1950 -Article 226, 14, 21, 300-A -Andhra Pradesh State Aquaculture Development Authority Act - Equality before law - Protection of life and personal liberty - Persons not to be deprived of property save by authority of law -Petitioners who are agriculturists filed this writ petition to declare impugned proceedings issued by respondent – Joint Director and Member Convener and cancelled fresh water aquaculture licenses of petitioners in respect of subject aquaculture farms as being illegal, arbitrary and contrary to provisions of law and violative of Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of Constitution of India –Held, This Court found that District Level Committee on a reference of complaint, got enquired into matter and submitted a report stating that petitioners are doing shrimp culture -On receipt of notice, petitioners submitted their explanation stating that Mandal Level Committee has not done their inspection properly - Thereafter, as per instructions of Joint Director of Fisheries, West Godavari, Eluru, Mandal Level Committee/Convener, conducted re-inspection in presence of petitioners and submitted a report to effect that petitioners are doing shrimp culture, which culture is prohibited in fresh water tanks and releasing saline water into Irrigation , which leads to Irrigation Channel contrary to permissions - District Level Committee chaired by District Collector after considering inspection report of Mandal Level Committee and explanation submitted by petitioners in its 120th District Level Committee meeting resolved to cancel licenses of petitioners and accordingly, respondent issued impugned cancellation orders and there is no illegality or irregularity -Fresh Water aquaculture permissions are granted only in lands coming under aquaculture zones where lands are inundated, submerged, not fit for paddy or for other agricultural operations -Court found that there is no illegality or irregularity in cancelling petitioners fresh water aqua culture license -Petition dismissed.
ORDER :
1. The petitioners who are agriculturists filed this writ petition to declare the impugned proceedings dated 9.12.2020 issued by the 3rd respondent – Joint Director and Member Convener wherein and whereby cancelled the fresh water aquaculture licenses of the petitioners in respect of the subject aquaculture farms as being illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of law and violative of Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India.
2. The case of the petitioners is that they owned Ac.2.30 cents, Ac.5.20 cents, Ac.5.17 cents, Ac.4.33 cents and Ac.3.42 cents of land covered by Survey Nos.224-2, 3&5, 1052, 88/1, 88/2A-1, 88/2A-2, 88/2B, 2C, 2D, 2E, 2F, 26/AA-2. 26-2, 26/1A-1, 26/1B of Lankalakoderu Revenue Village, Palakollu Mandal, West Godavari District and they obtained licenses in the year 2016. The 3rd respondent issued notice dated 1.6.2020 alleging that the 7th respondent made a complaint against the petitioners and other farmers before Lokayukta, Andhra Pradesh vide Complaint No.559/2018/B1 and the petitioners were asked to submit their explanation within 15 days from the date of receipt of the said notice. The petitioners submitted their explanation/ objections on 12.6.2020 to the 3rd respondent requesting the respondents 2 to 6 to consider the real facts and drop the alleged notice dated 01.06.2020. On 24.12.2020, the 3rd respondent’s Subordinate staff visited the subject aquaculture farms and insisted the petitioners to close the respective tanks showing the proceedings dated 09.12.2020 of the 3rd respondent, issued as per the decision of the 120th meeting of District Level Committee dated 09.12.2020 directing the petitioners to vacate from their aquaculture tanks alleging that they are resorting to prawn culture in violation of the rules. The impugned proceedings are passed without considering their representations/ objections. Being aggrieved by the impugned proceedings, the present writ petition came to be filed.
3. The 6th respondent Fisheries Development Officer, Palakollu Mandal, West Godavari District filed counter on his behalf and also on behalf of Respondent Nos.1, 2, 3 and 4 stating that one Sri Nalli Rajesh made a complaint before the Lok Ayukta, Andhra Pradesh stating that the petitioners are doing unauthorized shrimp culture and requested to take action against them. The Collector and District Magistrate, West Godavari instructed to conduct joint inspection and submit a detailed report on the petitioners’ fish tanks. The Mandal Level Committee submitted joint inspection reports on 07.04.2020 stating that the petitioners are doing shrimp culture contrary to the guidelines issued in G.O.Ms.No.7 dated 16.3.2013 and G.O.Ms.No.15 dated 26.5.2015 and they are releasing polluted water into Rapaka Irrigation Channel. The District Collector/Chairman for Fresh Water Aquaculture on 30.4.2020 had instructed the authorities to issue notice to the petitioners duly calling their explanation. The Joint Director of Fisheries, Eluru issued notice on 01.6.2020 calling for their explanations. The petitioners submitted their explanation on 12.6.2020 stating that the Mandal Level Committee has not done their inspection properly. Thereon, the Joint Director of Fisheries, West Godavar, Eluru issued Memo dated 07.10.2020 to the Mandal Level Committee/Convener, Palakollu to conduct re-inspection and submit report. The Mandal Level Committee, Palakollu has conducted joint inspection on 19.10.2020 in the presence of the petitioners and reported that the petitioners are doing shrimp culture and releasing saline water into Irrigation Bodhi, which leads to Rapaka Irrigation Channel without valid permissions from the competent authorities and violated the guidelines issued in G.O.Ms.No.7 dated 16.3.2013 and G.O.Ms.No.15 dated 26.5.2015. The matter is placed before the 120th District Level Committee meeting on 09.12.2020 for taking necessary action. The District Level Committee chaired by the District Collector
Mohinder Singh Gill Vs. Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi
The provisions of the Coastal Aquaculture Authority Act and the rules made thereunder do not apply to aquaculture farms that are outside the aquaculture zone.
lands granted permissions for fish culture could not be said to be marshy lands and inundated lands fit for fish culture by digging fish tanks.
The court emphasized the importance of enforcing regulations under the APSADA Act, 2020 and related rules to address unauthorized aquaculture activities.
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.