Back
2022 Supreme(Mad) 2088
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
ABDUL QUDDHOSE, J.
F.M.C.108, Shree Ellaiamman Andikuppam Fishermen Co-operative Society Ltd., Represented by Mr. Parthipan, Thiruvallur - Appellant
Versus
The District Collector, Thiruvallur & Others - Respondent
W.P. No. 13507 of 2022 & WMP No. 12688 of 2022
Decided On : 22-06-2022
For the Petitioner:S. Hemalatha, Advocate. For the Respondents:R1 to R4, P. Kumaresan, Addl. Advocate General.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's power to issue a Mandamus to enforce the implementation of orders and agreements related to fishing activities, and the right of the petitioner society to carry out fishing in their allotted areas.
Headnote:
Mandamus - Fishing Dispute - 14.12.2021, 08.05.2022 - The court directed the first respondent to implement the order dated 14.12.2021 passed by the fourth respondent as well as the amicable agreement dated 08.05.2022 reached between two groups before the community panchayat and in case, the petitioner requires police protection, they can seek the same from the second respondent who shall consider the said request on merits and in accordance with law.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, as the President of the Society, filed a writ petition seeking a Mandamus to direct the third respondent to conduct an enquiry expeditiously and allow the members of the Society to go for fishing in accordance with the orders passed by the fourth respondent on 14.12.2021 and the amicable agreement made before the panchayat on 08.05.2022 with police protection of the second respondent.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner society, consisting of 37 fishermen, was engaged in traditional fishing in the coastal areas and had been prevented from fishing in their allotted areas by the fifth respondent, leading to financial crisis for the members. The court also noted that an order was passed by the fourth respondent segregating the areas of fishing between the petitioner society and the fifth respondent group, and an amicable resolution was reached before the community panchayat on 08.05.2022.
Issues: The issues involved the obstruction caused by the fifth respondent and its group, the failure to implement the order dated 14.12.2021 and the resolution dated 08.05.2022, and the financial crisis faced by the members of the petitioner society due to the prevention of fishing activity.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the fact that the petitioner society had not been allowed to carry out fishing activity in their allotted areas due to obstruction by the fifth respondent, and the existence of the order dated 14.12.2021 segregating the fishing areas and the amicable resolution passed before the community panchayat on 08.05.2022.
Final Decision: The court directed the first respondent to implement the order dated 14.12.2021 passed by the fourth respondent as well as the amicable agreement dated 08.05.2022 reached between two groups before the community panchayat, and allowed the petitioner to seek police protection from the second respondent if required.
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue Writ of Mandamus directing the third respondent to conduct enquiry expeditiously and consequently direct the members of the petitioner's society to go for fishing in pursuance to the orders passed by the fourth respondent vide dated 14.12.2021 and the amicable agreement made before the panchayat on 08.05.2022 with the police protection of the second respondent.)
1. This writ petition has been filed for a Mandamus seeking for a direction to the third respondent to conduct enquiry expeditiously and consequently direct the members of the Society to go for fishing pursuant to the orders passed by the fourth respondent dated 14.12.2021 and the agreement signed by the parties before the Panchayat on 08.05.2022 with police protection of the second respondent.
2. The petitioner is a President of the Society. According to the petitioner, there are 37 fishermen in the petitioner society and their group is called “Thavamani Group”. It is their case that they are engaged in the traditional occupation of fishing in the coast of Pazhaverkadu through which they earn their livelihood. According to the petitioner Society, its members are the original inhabitants and their forefathers were engaged in traditional fishing in the coastal areas since time immemorial.
3. According to the petitioner, due to business rivalry, another group called “Selvam Group”, the fifth respondent herein, consisting of 37 fishermen families started creating dispute in separation of areas and because of the dispute, the members of the petitioner society have not gone for fishing for the past one year. The petitioner society had earlier given a representation on 29.11.2021 to the fourth respondent. According to the petitioner, based on the said representation, the fourth respondent called for mediation on 10.12.2021 and heard both the parties. After hearing both sides, by proceedings dated 14.12.2021, the fourth respondent directed the petitioner society and the fifth respondent to carry out the fishing in their allotted areas so as to avoid law and order problem and further disputes. Both the groups were directed to carry out the fishing in north side and east side respectively on rotation basis.
4. According to the petitioner, though an order has been passed by the fourth respondent dividing the area of fishing, the fifth respondent did not allow the petitioner society to carry out fishing operation in their allotted areas and because of the fifth respondent preventing the petitioner society members from fishing in the allotted areas, its members have suffered financial crisis. According to the petitioner society, its members are entitled to go for fishing and earn their livelihood and any prevention will amount to violation of their fundamental rights. Since the disputes were prolonging, the third respondent sent a Notice dated 07.02.2022 to the petitioner society calling upon them to come for an enquiry on 24.02.2022 and on subsequent dates. According to the petitioner, on 08.05.2022, a community panchayat was conducted between the members of the petitioner society and the members of the fifth respondent group and it was agreed to divide the area of fishing operation. According to the petitioner, even the Resolution passed in the community panchayat on 08.05.2022 was not obeyed by the fifth respondent group. The petitioner has also given a representation on 23.05.2022 to the respondents requesting the official respondents to protect the interest of the petitioner by allowing them to do their fishing activity in terms of the order dated 14.12.2021 and the Resolution passed in the community panchayat on 08.05.2022.
5. According to the petitioner, despite the aforementioned order as well as the Resolution, till date, its members have not been allowed to do their fishing activity on account of obstruction made by the fifth respondent and its group. In such circumstances, this wr
