SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1974 Supreme(Mad) 77

Madras High Court
K. VEERASWAMI,VARADARAJAN
Papanasam Fishermen Co-op.Society Ltd. - Appellant
Versus
Collector of Thanjavur - Respondent
Decided On : 02/28/1974

Advocates:
N. Ganapathy and V. B. Jayapandian, for Appellants, Govt. Pleader and B. Kumar, for Respondents.

The authority of a public authority invested with statutory powers to grant a license or lease is traceable to the statute and therefore, statutory authority. Once that is the position, it follows that, when the authority is controlled by the provisions of the Act and rules made thereunder, even the terms and conditions in the lease would be traceable to the statutory power.

Headnote:

FISHERIES - INDIAN FISHERIES ACT, 1897 - MADRAS ACT II OF 1929 - TAMIL NADU INLAND FISHERIES (LEASE AND LICENCE) RULES, 1972 - FISHING RIGHTS - LEASE - CANCELLATION - STATUTORY AUTHORITY - MAINTAINABILITY OF WRIT PETITION - PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE.

Fact of the Case:

The appellant was granted a license and lease for fishing rights in inland waters in Thanjavur Taluk by the Collector. However, the Government directed the Collector to cancel the lease and grant fishing rights to a third party. The appellant filed writ petitions challenging the Collector's orders, but the petitions were dismissed as not maintainable.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the Collector's authority to grant the license and lease was traceable to the Indian Fisheries Act, 1897, as amended by Madras Act II of 1929 and the rules framed thereunder. Therefore, the appellant's fishing rights were traceable to the statutory provisions and the rules made thereunder, and not merely to the contractual relationship with the Collector. As a result, the writ petitions were maintainable.

Issues: 1. Whether the Collector's authority to grant the license and lease was traceable to the Indian Fisheries Act, 1897, as amended by Madras Act II of 1929 and the rules framed thereunder. 2. Whether the appellant's fishing rights were traceable to the statutory provisions and the rules made thereunder, and not merely to the contractual relationship with the Collector. 3. Whether the writ petitions were maintainable.

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the Collector's authority to grant the license and lease was traceable to the Indian Fisheries Act, 1897, as amended by Madras Act II of 1929 and the rules framed thereunder. The court relied on the fact that the Collector exercised a statutory authority in granting the license and entering into the lease in respect of the fishing rights. 2. The court held that the appellant's fishing rights were traceable to the statutory provisions and the rules made thereunder, and not merely to the contractual relationship with the Collector. The court relied on the fact that the Collector acted in conformity with Section 6 of the Indian Fisheries Act and the rules made thereunder. 3. The court held that the writ petitions were maintainable. The court relied on the fact that the Collector was acting pursuant to a statutory power, namely, the Indian Fisheries Act and the rules made thereunder.

Final Decision: The appeals were allowed. The Collector was directed to dispose of the matter afresh, without paying any heed to the direction of the Government as to whether the lease in favor of the appellants should be canceled.

Judgement

K. VEERASWAMI, C.J. :- Ismail J. dismissed two writ petitions, out of which the appeals arise, on the ground that they were not maintainable, since the rights of the petitioners, who are appellants, were traceable to the contracts entered into between them and the Collector in respect of fishing rights in inland waters in Thanjavur Taluk. Unfortunately, the learned Judge's attention was not drawn to the fact that the Collector exercised, in granting the licence and entering into the lease in respect of the fishing rights, a statutory authority traceable to the Indian Fisheries Act, 1897, as amended by Madras Act II of 1929 and the rules framed thereunder.

2. Briefly these are the facts : For the year 1972-73, in Thanjavur the Fishermen Co-operative Society held the licence for the fishing rights, the fee therefor being Rs. 58,795. The Society defaulted to pay Rs. 33,085. On 27-8-1973, the Collector of Thanjavur notified the appellant in W. A. 340 of 1973, whether it would make an offer in respect of the right to fish for the year 1973-74. It accordingly made an offer on 7-9-1973, and the grant of a licence followed. The fee offered and accepted was Rs. 64,650, of which one half, according to the stipulation, was deposited by the offerer. On 10-9-1973, a lease was granted and the same was executed on the next day. The appellant claims that, as preliminary to the operation of the fishing rights, it invested a further sum of Rs. 15,000. On 12-10-1973, Government, by its memorandum of that date, directed the Collector to stay the grant to the appellant, which he did on 16-10-1973. Then followed another Memorandum dated 22-10-1973, from the Government directing the Collector to cancel the lease and grant fishing rights to the third respondent-society. The Government, of course, in making the said direction, took caution to say that the Collector might do it after issuing a show cause notice to the appellant. But, in the circumstances, it is obvious that this part of the direction was only a make-belief or a show of complying with the principles of natural justice. A show cause notice was issued to the appellant by the Collector asking it to show cause whether it had any right to enter into a contract to operate fishing rights outside the limits of Thiruthuraipundi taluk. An explanation was submitted by the appellant on 1-11-1973. Four days later, the Collector cancelled the lease. But, in coming to that conclusion, he merely said that the explanation of the appellant was not satisfactory. We may mention that, on 26-10-1973, W. P. 5813 of 1973 was filed to quash the said orders of the Collector referred to earlier. Against cancellation of the lease, W. P. 6101 of 1973 was taken out. It is these petitions that Ismail, J. dismissed as not maintainable.

3. The Indian Fisheries Act, 1897, provides for certain matters relating to fisheries. It contains a definition section. By Section 6, provision is made for protection of fish in selected waters by rules of State Government. Sub-section (1) of Section 6 says that the State Government may make rules for the purposes mentioned in the section and may by notification in the Official Gazette apply all or any of such rules to such waters, not being private waters, as the State Government may specify in the said notification. Sub-section (4), as it originally stood, read :-

Such rules may also prohibit all fishing in any specified water for a period not exceeding two years."

This sub-section was amended by Madras Act II of 1929 and as amended the subsection, which has for now, is-

"Such rules may also prohibit all fishing in any specified water except under a lease or licence granted by Government and in accordance with such conditions as may be specified in such lease or licence."

In exercise of this rule-making power and in terms thereof, the State Government made rules called the Tamil Nadu Inland Fisheries (Lease and Licence) Rules, 1972. Rule 2 deals with prohibition of fishing withou








Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top