Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
Ch. Narasimha Rao And Ors. vs The Commissioner Of Fisheries And Ors. on 19 February, 1992
Equivalent citations: 1992(2)ALT189
ORDER M.N. Rao, J.
1. The fortythree petitioners herein, claiming themselves to be small agriculturists, each one of them owning less than Acs.2.5, are residents of Machilipatnam. By this writ petition, they are seeking a writ of mandamus or any appropriate writ, order, or direction, declaring the action of the first respondent, the Commissioner of Fisheries, Govt. of Andhra Pradesh, in excluding agriculturists from the grant of Govt. Land on lease for the purpose of prawn culture issuing Notification No. 21986/P2/88, dated 7-9-88 as illegal and unconstitutional, being violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India.
2. By the impugned notification issued by the first respondent, Govt., invited applications from three categories of persons/organisations for considering allotment of Govt. lands on lease for brackish water shrimp farming on certain conditions. The three categories of persons/organisations eligible to apply are: (1) Fishermen Co-operative Societies: (2) Self employed technocrats: and (3) progressive entrepreneurs. According to the said notification, the expression "fishermen Co-operative Society" means and includes:
"A fishermen Co-operative Society, a joint farming society, consisting of members who are fishermen by profession and/or by caste and whose main source of earning their livelihood is by fishining in the sea or coastal waters and who are ordinarily residents of areas where notified brackish water lands are existing."
According to the said notification, the express "self-employed technocrat" means and includes:
"A person who is familiar with brackish water aquaculture either on account of being traditionally a resident of the notified brackish water area and who is familiar with the brackish water aquaculture or mariculture on account of these being sources of his or his family's livelihood or who has undergone training in brackish water aquaculture or mariculture or who has such academic background which enables him to take up shrimp farming on his own."
According to the said notification, the expression "progressive entrepreneurs" means and includes:
"Any individual or group of individuals or partnership firm or a company which has adequate technical know-how, financial and managerial capabilities in taking up and establishing brackish water area under semi-intensive or intensive methods either with the knowledge, expertise and other resources available at the disposal of such individuals, firm, company, etc., as the case may be, or sought to be imported from outside such technology, expertise or resource for establishing semi-intensive or intensive shrimp farming."
3. The organisations mentioned in the first category are eligible up to a maximum of two hectares per member. Persons mentioned in the second category will be eligible up to a maximum of four hectares each and those covered by the third category would be eligible up to a maximum of one hundred hectares. An area larger than one hundred hectares would be considered on the merits of each case.
4. Paragraph 8 of the impugned notification says that the applicants who are finally approved would be granted a letter of intent to enable them to approach financial institutions and other agencies for obtaining financial assistance, technical collaboration, etc. Physical possession of the land would be given only when the applicants have obtained the required technical collaboration and sanction of loan assistance from the financial institutions. By paragraph 9 it is made clear that the assignee should execute lease agreement covering the conditions stipulated by the Department for this purpose.
5. It is stated that in each of the districts of Nellore, Krishna and East Godavari, one thousand hectares of land belonging to the Govt., is available for allotment for the purpose. The petitioners' case firstly, is that confining consideration to the above three categories of persons/organisations to the exclusion of agriculturists is arbitrary, being violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the constitution. The second contention is that pursuant to the representation made by the first respondent each of the petitioners had deposited Rupees five hundred, the application fee, and inasmuch as they acted to their detriment by depositing the application fee, the respondents are estopped from going back on their promise to consider the claims of the petitioners for allotment.
6. We are not impressed with either of the two arguments. Prawn culture is a valuable foreign exchange earner. By the impugned notification, it is stated in the counter-affidavit filed by the fourth respondent that, 60% of the land available for the purpose in each district is reserved in favour of fishermen Co-operative societies, 20% in favour of self-employed technocrats and 20% in favour of progressive entrepreneurs. It is not the case of the petitioners that they are acquainted with prawn culture nor is it their traditional occupation. We cannot accept the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that traditionally the occupation of agriculture includes prawn culture. None of the petitioners is depending upon fishing for their livelihood, nor do they have any expertise in fishing. As the object of the Government in encouraging prawn culture is to earn foreign exchange and also help the poorer sections of the community whose traditional occupation is fishing, we do not discern any illegality in the impugned notification. No one who is not associated with fishing activity, either directly or indirectly, is considered for the purpose of allotment of Government land on lease for prawn culture. The first category, fishermen co-operatives, consists of persons whose profession is fishing and whose main source of livelihood is also fishing. The second category, namely, self-employed technocrats, consists of persons familiar with brackish water aquaculture or mariculture on account of these being the family's source of livelihood and who have undergone training which enable them to take up shrimp farming on their own. The third category of progressive entrepreneurs have the technical know-how and financial and managerial capacities to take up and establish semi-intensive or intensive shrimp farming. It is, therefore, clear that the persons/organisations contemplated for the purpose of granting lease-hold rights constitute a distinct class and there is a valid nexus with the object sought to be achieved. There is intelligible differentia between the three categories grouped together and those that are left out. No one who is similarly circumstanced with the petitioners is chosen for any favourable treatment in the matter of granting leasehold right for prawnculture. The classification was made validly and we find no arbitrariness in the impugned action.
7. No material is placed before us to show that at any point of time any communication was sent by any of the respondents to any of the petitioners intimating them that they are eligible to apply for lease of Govt. land. The learned counsel has asserted that if the Govt. files are summoned they would contain notings favourable to the petitioners. We are not inclined to look into the Govt. files in this case for more than one reason. The doctrine of estoppel comes into play only when a specific representation is made by an authority or a public official to a citizen and basing upon that representation if the latter has acted or initiated action, M.P. Sugar Mills caste, , Union of India v. Godfrey Philips Ltd., . There is absolutely no material to show that any representation, either written or oral, was made by any of the respondents in favour of any of the petitioners as to grant of lease-hold rights of Govt. land. Nothings on files made by officials or ministers by themselves do not give rise to any valid cause of action for their enforcement. In order to give rise to a valid cause of action, there must be specific orders passed by Govt. in accordance with the Business Rules. A noting on a file made by an officer or minister can be rescinded at any time before a formal communication is issued in that regard. May be some of the petitioners have knowledge as to what had transpired in the concerned department in the Secretariat but that knowledge cannot be a valid ground for us to look into the files for the purpose of sustaining the plea of estoppel raised by the petitioners.
It is stated by the learned counsel for the petitioners that each of the petitioners has deposited Rupees five hundred by way of demand draft for the purpose of obtaining lease of Govt. land. There is also a pleading to that effect in paragraph 4 of the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition. This averment is not specifically controverted in the counter-affidavit filed by the fourth respondent. When it is the stand of the respondents that the petitioners are not eligible to apply, it is ununderstandable why the application fee remitted by the petitioners was not refunded to them. We, therefore, direct the respondents to refund, after proper verification and within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, the respective amounts due to each of the petitioners with interest calculated at 9% per annum from the date of deposit till the date of repayment.
9. Subject to the above direction the writ petition is, dismissed. No costs. Advocate's fee Rs. 350/-.