The main legal point established in the judgment is the strict regulation of aquaculture activities within the coastal areas as stipulated under the Coastal Aquaculture Authority Act, 2005, and the need for permissions to be granted within the ambit of the provisions of the Act.

JUDGMENT

(Common Prayer: Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records culminating in the Notice dated 11.10.2018 under Na.Ka.No.112/A2/2018 issued by the 5 th respondent and quash the same and consequently direct the 5 th respondent not to harass or interfere with the petitioners shrimp farm activities in their own patta land by considering the petitioners representation dated 22.10.2018.)

COMMON ORDER

1. The list on hand has been instituted to quash the order passed by the Assistant Director of Fisheries Department, Tiruvallur dated 11.10.2018 asking the petitioners to close down the Prawn Culture Unit which is organised without getting due permission from the Competent Authority under the Statutes and Rules in force.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner Mr.R. Shanmugam would submit that the order impugned has been passed without jurisdiction and beyond the scope of the provisions of the Coastal Aquaculture Authority Act, 2005 [hereinafter referred as 'Central Act'] and the rules framed thereunder. The Fisheries Department can regulate the Aquaculture farms organised within the Coastal Regulations Zone. In the present case, the land belongs to the petitioners is falling beyond the Coastal Regulation Zone which is admitted by the respondents. That being so, the question of obtaining permission from the Coastal Authorities under the Central Act would not arise at all. Permission needs to be obtained from the Coastal Authorities only for the Prawn Culture farms organised within the Coastal Regulation Zone. Since, the subject land not being a land situate within the limits of Coastal Regulation Zone, seeking permission would not arise at all.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners would further submit that nearly about 300 Aquaculture farms are in operation in Tiruvallur District in Tamil Nadu alone and all such Prawn Cultures are allowed to carry on their activities and therefore, the ill motivated complaint given by the 7 th respondent against the petitioners farm ought not to have been entertained by the Authorities for the purpose of issuing the impugned order.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would urge this Court by stating that the Coastal Aquaculture Authority in letter dated 04.02.2021, issued certain guidelines for culture of Litopenaeus vannamei in fresh water/inland farms. As per the said guidelines issued by the Coastal Aquaculture Authority, no Act is enacted nor rules are framed for the purpose of regulating Aquaculture farms across the State of Tamil Nadu outside CRZ and therefore, very action initiated against the petitioners under the provisions of the Coastal Aquaculture Authority Act, 2005 is untenable.

5. The learned Counsel for the petitioner also referred the counter affidavit filed by the respondents and would submit that the Counter proceeds mainly on the presumption that the land belongs to the petitioners situate within the Coastal Regulation Zone, but the fact is otherwise and therefore, the impugned order is without jurisdiction and liable to be set aside.

6. Mr.Balan Haridas, learned counsel for the 7 th respondent in W.P.No.29152 of 2018, would strongly oppose the contentions of the petitioner by stating that the learned counsel for the petitioners has misconstrued and misinterpreted the provision of the Act and Rules. The contention that the impugned order is without jurisdiction is incorrect. As per the Act, No Objection Certificate from the Pollution Control Board is mandatory and in the present case, the petitioners have not even obtained any permission from the competent authorities. Therefore, the writ petitions are liable to be rejected.

7. The Aquaculture Farms are causing damages to the agricultural activities in that locality and more so, affecting the ground water. Since the Aquaculture Farms causing environmental damages and resulting in destruction of agricultural lands, the Aquacu