Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
Ambati Anjaiah vs Government Of A.P. And Others on 22 February, 2001
Equivalent citations: 2001(3)ALD70, 2001(3)ALT264
Author: S.B. Sinha
Bench: S.B. Sinha
ORDER
S.B. Sinha, CJ
1. This appeal is directed against a judgment and order dated 13-12-2000 passed by a learned single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No.19789 of 1997 and batch whereby and whereunder the writ petition filed by the petitioner-appellant herein was dismissed with costs. Under the A.P. Co-operative Societies Act the Fishermen Co-operative Society of Vemulakonda village ('the Co-operative Society' for short) is registered. Its membership stood at 81. The water spread area available to it for conducting fishing operations in the tank was about 61.31 hectares. The co-operative Society filed the writ petition questioning an order passed by the 1st respondent herein while disposing of a revision petition directing the Assistant Director of Fisheries, Nalgonda to take immediate necessary action for removal of the ineligible members from the society and also to admit 10 fishermen selected by the Assistant Director on 4-5-1983. It appears that the 1st respondent had called for a report from the Mandal Revenue Officer, Veligonda and in its report the said authority stated that out of 81 members only 24 members are residing in the village and the rest had been residing at various other places and have alternative avocations including Governmenl jobs. Pursuant to the Government Order dated 4-8-1997 in Memo No.5417/Fish.II(1)/94-19 the Assistant Director of Fisheries was directed to remove as many as 38 members of the society specified therein and also to refund the share capital to them. It further directed the society to convene an executive body meeting within 10 days from the date of receipt of the order and pass necessary resolution removing 38 ineligible fishermen as members thereof.
2. The order of the Government of Andhra Pradesh dated 12-9-1987 in its Memo No. IS-1863/Fish.II (1)97-1 reads thus:
"The Commissioner and Director of Fisheries is requested to conduct a detailed enquiry into the allegations made against the Fisherman Co-operative Society, Vemulakonda, Veligonda (M), Nalgonda district and then only admit the new members into the society."
3. It is not in dispute that detailed enquiries had been made in the matter by the authorities concerned. With the consent of the parties one advocate Commissioner was also appointed in whose presence the Assistant Director of Fisheries was directed to conduct a fresh enquiry. A report was submitted by the advocate Commissioner wherein it was clearly stated that the findings of the Assistant Director to the effect that there were 38 bogus members are correct. He further informed that even Government employees like Mandal Revenue Office, Revenue Inspectors, batik employees, engineers and lecturers are continuing as members of the society. The learned single Judge, having heard the Counsel for the parties, directed:
"In view of the findings recorded by me on various issues that cropped up for consideration in this batch of writ petitions, the WP No. 17517 of 1998 filed by the eligible fishermen is allowed with costs. The WP No.25457 of 1997 is dismissed in sofar as it relates to 26 persons who are not eligible to be members of the Society, and the order of the Assistant Director dated 8-9-1997 in relation to the 7 petitioners i.e., 10, 11, 14, 25, 27, 31 and 32 is set aside as they are found to be genuine fishermen by the Commissioner and they are allowed to continue as members of the Society. No costs. The WP No.19589 of 1997 is accordingly dismissed. No costs. As Writ Petition 15537 of 1998 was already dismissed on 7-9-1998, no order need be passed in this writ petition. Advocate's fee is fixed at Rs.2,000/- in all these writ petitions."
4. This appeal is filed by one Ambati Anjaiah said to be Ex-President of the Fishermen Co-operative Society.
5. We fail to understand how he has locus standi to prefer this appeal. Be that as it may, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has raised a contention to the effect that the impugned order is contrary to the bye-law 4 (a) of the society which reads thus:
"any person who is desirous of fishing in the water bodies within the area of operation of FCS as specified in the bye-law No.5 and is so certified by the Assistant Director of Fisheries that the proposed member possess required fishing skills and that his main occupation of livelihood is fishing and who is competent to contract and is residing in the area of operation of the society shall be eligible for admission as a member of the society subject to the provisions of sub-clause 4 (b) :
Provided further that all the persons who act as middlemen in advancing money to fishermen, fish merchants, pawn-brokers and other indulging money-lending, owners of fishing boats and crafts who do not engage themselves personally in fishing activity shall not be admitted as members since the FCS is meant exclusively for economically - weaker sections whose main occupation is fishing. No person can claim as a matter of right for admission as a member of the society."
6. The learned Counsel has also drawn our attention to a letter dated 19-2-1993 issued by the Assistant Director of Fisheries to the Regional Deputy Director of Fisheries wherein it was stated that on that occasion, the aforementioned 10 persons were not found eligible for being included as members and thus the State could not have exercised its suo motu power of retention and before doing so, a notice ought to have been given.
7. Having regard to the fact that the Co-operative Society was party to a consent order as regards holding of an enquiry by an advocate Commissioner and the learned single Judge having accepted the report submitted by the learned advocate Commissioner and no argument having been advanced before us as regard the correctness or otherwise thereof, we are of the opinion that this Court need not go into the aforementioned question. Having agreed to the aforementioned order now it does not lie in the mouth of the appellant to contend that the factual finding should be set aside purported to be on the basis of the bye-law 4 (a) or otherwise. Bye-law 4 (a) is an enabling provision as regards entry of some members into the society. A finding of fact has been arrived at that the aforementioned, 10 fishermen became eligible therefor. Such a finding of fact was confirmed by the advocate Commissioner in his report which, it would bear repetition to state, was pursuant to or in furtherance of a consent order. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the appellant cannot be permitted to raise the said question.
8. So far as the second contention raised by the learned Counsel is concerned, the same has also no force inasmuch as the revision petition was taken up having regard to the order of the High Court dated 28-4-1995. The said revision petition was disposed of upon service of notice and giving opportunity of hearing to all concerned by the Minister of Animal Husbandry and Fisheries. Arguments were advanced before the Hon'ble Minister. The Co-operative Society, it appears, was also represented by a Counsel before the Hon'ble Minister. It was not, therefore, a proceeding which was initiated suo motu and in any event, the appellant has not been able to show any prejudice for not being given an opportunity of hearing prior to initiation of the said proceedings.
9. For the reasons aforementioned, we do not find any merit in this appeal which is accordingly dismissed. In the facts and circumstances of the case there shall be no order as to costs.