Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Ghantasala Bhushana Kumari vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh, on 25 November, 2022
Author: M. Ganga Rao
Bench: M. Ganga Rao
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE M. GANGA RAO
Writ Petition Nos.28212 and 28696 of 2021
ORDER:
The petitioner in these two writ petitions is one and the same. The cause of action in both the writ petitions is one and the same. W.P.No.28696 of 2021 is filed questioning the proceedings dated 16.01.2020, wherein and whereby the petitioner's registration of the aquaculture farm is cancelled and the W.P.No.28212 of 2021 is filed questioning the consequential order dated 29.10.2021 asking the petitioner to vacate the fish tanks. The pleadings in both the writ petitions are one and the same arisen on the same facts and law. Hence, these two writ petitions are heard together and disposed of by this common order.
2. Gravamen of the petitioner is that the petitioner along with another obtained a certificate of registration of fresh water aquaculture farm on 08.09.2014 for doing fresh water aquaculture at J. Turakapeta, Mulasavalapuram Gram Panchayat, Sarubujjili Mandal, Srikakulam District in respect of the land extent Ac.24.67 cents situated in Sy.Nos.75-1S, 62A, 73-16A, 75-1A, 72-5A, 67-7, 68-10, 68-14, 68-12, 67-4, 68-12, 67-4, 68-11, 66, 74, 74, 67-6, 2 6812, 68-11, 68-13, 67-4, 67-6B, 68-15, 75-19, 72-5A, 72-4, 72- 1, 67-3A, 114-6, 68-11, 68-13, 67-4, 67-6B, 67-3B, 68, 60-2A, 75- 5A, 75-1B, 57, 67-4, 67-6B, 68-15, 75-19, 68-17A, 67-B, 68-11, 67-7, 72-9, 56-2B, 114, 72-1, 74-3, 62-2, 73-16, 75-5B, 62-2C, 75-1A, 60-1D, 62-2B, 62-2D, 62-2C, 114-4, 67-1, 68-6, 71-5, 114-4, 72, 74, 56/2B, 68/12, 67/5, 114, 68/7, 75/15, 73/16B, 62/2B,C,D, 67/5 and 57. The petitioner is doing aquaculture in the said farms. The certificate of registration is issued as per the guidelines issued in G.O.Ms.No.7 dated 16.3.2013 and G.O.Ms.No.15 dated 26.5.2015 (for brievity hereinafter referred to as 'GO.Ms.No.7 and 15'). The petitioner received notice dated 28.9.2019 issued by Shalantri Gram Panchayat stating that the petitioner without permission in respect of Jangamayi Tank, Marripadu Colony in Shalantri Gram Panchayat, Surubujjili Mandal is resorting to fish culture and feeding fish with chicken waste and mixing the chemicals in the tank due to which, the water in the tank is getting contaminated and by using the contaminated water the people are suffering from contagious diseases, for which the petitioner submitted her explanation. The officials inspected the petitioner's fish tanks. The 5th respondent - Assistant Inspector of Fisheries, Hira Mandal, Srikakulam District issued Memo dated 04.10.2019 to stop fish culture and submitted 3 a report to the 3rd and 4th respondents alleging that the petitioner is growing prohibited Pangasius fish instead of doing freshwater aqua culture in the fish tanks in violation of the guidelines issued in G.O.Ms.No.7 and 15 by feeding mutton and chicken waste as prime feed to the fish. The Government officials are visiting the fish tanks periodically for every six months as per the guidelines issued in G.O.Ms.No.7 and 15 and they never raised any objection that the petitioner is resorting to illegal activities in growing fish. Only due to change in the reins of the government administration, the respondent authorities are resorting to this vindictive action against the petitioner. The petitioner is doing fresh water fish culture in strict adherence to the guidelines issued in G.O.Ms.No.7 and 15. Nearly 124 workers are working in the fish tanks and they will be deprived of their livelihood and even the petitioner is solely dependent on the fish culture in the tanks and she is also deprived of her livelihood. The petitioner filed W.P.No.9627 of 2020 aggrieved by the Memo dated 26.5.2020. This Court directed the respondent authorities to maintain status- quo with regard to the subject fish tanks for a period of four weeks and the said interim order was extended from time to time due to pandemic situation. As per the orders of this Court passed in W.P.No.9254 of 2021 (in suo motu extension of interim orders in 4 view of current wave of COVID-19 pandemic) relating to continuation of interim orders is concerned, the same was extended till 15.11.2021 and it is also made clear that continuation of interim order in any individual case can be decided by the Bench concerned. Subsequently, the 3rd respondent issued the impugned Memo dated 29.10.2021 (signed on 23.11.2021) directing the petitioner to vacate the fish tanks within seven days. The petitioner submitted his explanation on 27.11.2021 to the 3rd respondent to give some more time till end of harvesting the present fish farming and requested not to take decision until finalization of W.P.No.9627 of 2020. Subsequently, the petitioner filed W.P. No. 28696 of 2021 questioning the proceedings No.981/B/2019 dated NIL-12-2019 signed on 16.01.2020. Without challenging the main cancellation order dated 16.01.2020, the petitioner filed W.P.No.28212 of 2021 questioning the order to vacate the fish tanks. Having come to know the mistake of not challenging the earlier cancellation order of registration, W.P.No.28696 of 2021 is filed. In the impugned cancellation order, registration of fish tanks is valid for a period of five years from 08.09.2014 to 07.09.2019 in respect of land in survey numbers mentioned herein above and it is alleged in the impugned order that the Joint Director of Fisheries reported that 5 the petitioner is using chicken waste and mutton waste as feed in their fish farm which is in violation of the condition No.7.24 of the guidelines issued in G.O.Ms.No.7. Thereupon, the District Level Committee, Fresh Water Aquaculture in their meeting held on 05.12.2019 discussed and found that the petitioner is practicing unhealthy environmentally hazardous methods of culture, which is in violation of Condition No.7.24 of the guidelines issued in G.O.Ms.No.7 and it is resolved to cancel the registration of the fish farm of the petitioner and the competent authority - 2nd respondent cancelled the petitioner's registration of aquaculture. Consequently, by order dated 29.10.2021 impugned in W.P.No.28212 of 2021, the 3rd respondent directed the petitioner to vacate the fish tanks within seven days.
3. This Court granted an interim order of status-quo in W.P.No.28212 of 2021 on 30.11.2021. In W.P.N.28696 of 2021, on 10.12.2021, this Court passed an interim order suspending the impugned order dated NIL-12-2019 (16.01.2020), however, it is made clear that if the subject tank is still in operation and not demolished, the petitioner shall not grow Pangasius fish in the subject tank and if the petitioner is cultivating Pangasius fish in the tank, the respondents are at liberty to take action in accordance with law.
6
4. Sri O. Manohar Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Sri M. Krishna Rao, Advocate on Record for the petitioner would mainly contend that the 2nd respondent while cancelling the registration has not afforded any opportunity to the petitioner to submit her explanation and the impugned cancellation order is passed based on the report submitted by the 3rd respondent behind the back of the petitioner in utter violation of the principles of natural justice, which is illegal and arbitrary. The petitioners are continuing the fish culture by approaching this court by filing several writ petitions and as per the orders of this Court passed in W.P.No.20243 dated 13.12.2019, W.P.No.9627 of 2020 wherein status quo is granted on 02.06.2021 and also in W.P.No.28212 of 2021 wherein status quo is granted and in W.P.No28696 of 2021 also an interim order is granted on 10.12.221. The respondent authorities highhandedly asked the petitioner to vacate the fish tanks by proceedings dated 29.10.2021, which is impugned in W.P. No.28212 of 2021, wherein status-quo order is granted. The respondent authorities without following the guidelines issued in G.O.Ms.No.7 and 15, due to political rivalry and pressure, are resorting to obstruct the petitioner from doing fish culture in her farms and there is no legally admissible evidence before the authorities to state that the petitioner is resorting to unhealthy 7 practice of using mutton waste and chicken waste as feed for growing prohibited Pangasius fish in the fish tanks and the whole action of the respondents against the petitioner restraining her to stop the fish culture in the tanks and vacate the tanks is wholly motivated and the same is illegal and arbitrary.
5. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Fisheries and Animal Husbandry, on instructions, states that a perusal of the evidence on record discloses that the petitioner is growing prohibited Pangasius fish in the Indian waters.
The fish is carnivorous (Non-Vegetarian). Even if a single Pangasius Fish is found in Indian waters, in view of highly carnivorous habit of Pangasius fish, there is major threat to indigenous fish population in Indian waters, which are mostly herbivorous. The petitioner is feeding the mutton and chicken waste to the fish growing in the farms and growing of prohibited Pangasius fish is unhealthy, thereby polluting the water and it is dangerous to the environment and water contamination. The Gram Panchayat has issued a notice to the petitioner against which the petitioner approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No.9627 of 2020 and obtained interim order of status-quo and filed several writ petitions and stopped the respondent authorities to take appropriate action against the petitioner and in some of 8 the writ petitions, interim orders are not extended. As on today, no orders are surviving in the writ petitions and all the interim orders are expired for not extending the same. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Fisheries and Animal Husbandry further states that the writ petition is not maintainable as the petitioner has an effective alternative remedy of appeal under the provisions of Section 35 of the Andhra Pradesh State Aquaculture Development Authority Act, 2020 and the rules made thereunder and the writ petition is not maintainable as the disputed questions of fact and law do arise for consideration.
6. Having carefully considered the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions of the learned counsel and on perusal of the material record, this Court, prima facie, found that the petitioners are resorting to illegal culture by growing the prohibited Pangasius fish in the fish tanks by resorting to illegal practice of feeding Pangasius fish with mutton waste and chicken waste and polluting the water in the fish tanks and releasing the water into the Irrigation channel, thereby the villagers are put to inconvenience for drinking water, in view of contamination of water and are also suffering from contagious diseases. Rearing of prohibited Pangsius fish in the fish tanks is in violation of the conditions imposed in the registration certificate and the 9 guidelines issued in G.O.Ms.No.7 and 15, which are framed as per the law laid down by the Apex Court and the provisions of the Air Act, 1981 and Water Act, 1974. It is dangerous to introduce Pangasius fish in the fish farms as there is likelihood of escape into surrounding lakes and it is deleterious to public health. In this case, public interest is involved. However, in the course of adjudicating of the lis, the disputed questions of fact and law do arise for consideration before this Court, which requires enquiry. Ordinarily, this Court will not embark upon enquiry exercising its power under the provisions of Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Under the provisions of Section 35 of Andhra Pradesh State Aquaculture Development Authority Act, 2020 and the rules made thereunder, the petitioner is having effective alternative remedy of appeal before the Director of Fisheries. In the interest of justice, this Court felt it appropriate to dispose of the writ petitions giving liberty to the petitioner to file appeal before the competent authority and on submission of such appeal, the appellate authority is directed to consider the same on its own merits as per law, without reference to the delay, if any, by giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and pass appropriate reasoned order as per law as expeditiously as possible within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and 10 communicate the same to the petitioner. The writ petitions are disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs.
As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.
_____________________
M. GANGA RAO, J
Date: .11.2022
CSR
11
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M. GANGA RAO
W.P.Nos.28212 and 28696 of 2021
DT: .11.2022
CSR