Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

5. The 4th respondent - Fisheries Development Officers filed his respective counters stating that on physical inspection, it is observed that the petitioners were involved in unauthorized culture of L.Vannamei shrimp in saline water conditions through bore wells, contrary to the permissions accorded for fresh water aquaculture and also the guidelines prescribed vide G.O.Ms.No.15 dated 26.05.2015 and contrary to the permission accorded for fresh water aquaculture and its guidelines. The Clause 7.15 in G.O.Ms.No.7 is applicable only to the farmers doing fresh water aquaculture but not for L.Vennamei shrimp culture to be taken up in saline water conditions within the limits of 0.5 ppt. as no person shall be allowed to do L.Vannamei culture in fresh water/inland waters without permission and contrary to the guidelines prescribed in G.O.Ms.No.15 dated 29.04.2013. But, in view of the interim orders passed by this Court, the 4th respondent has visited the aqua farming areas of the petitioners to ensure that the bore wells are not used from then. During the visit to the aquaculture farms of the petitioners, the 4th respondent has observed that the existing ponds of the petitioner in W.P.No.8917 of 2020 were kept vacant without any kind of aquaculture activities existing as on 28.06.2020 and the patch of the land previously dug adjacent to the ponds of the petitioner was found left in "as is condition" without any further digging. However, during the visit, the 4th respondent has observed that the petitioner in W.P.No.16432 of 2020 is resorting to unauthorized culture of L.Vannamei shrimp using saline water through bore wells as main source of culture, by violating the interim order passed by this Court.

7. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Fisheries, while reiterating the averments of the counter, states that the petitioners' fish tanks are registered as per the guidelines issued in G.O.Ms.No.7 dated 16.03.2013 only to conduct fresh water aquaculture, but the petitioners are resorting to unauthorized culture of L.Vannamei shrimp in saline water conditions through water used through bore wells without possessing the required permissions from the competent authority as per the guidelines issued in G.O.Ms.No.15 dated 26.05.2015. He further states that under the guise of interim order granted by this Court, the petitioners are continuously rearing the unauthorized culture of L.Vannamei shrimp in saline water by using the bore well water and letting the waste water into the irrigation channels and thereby causing damage to the paddy crop and also drinking water source as the petitioners are using the chemicals to rear the shrimp culture, but they are not entitled to use bore well water which are saline under the guise of supplementing or replenishing evaporated and seepage water, as per Clause 7.5 of G.O.Ms.No.7 dated 16.03.2013.

11. Clause 7.15 of G.O.Ms.No.7 dated 16.03.2013 says that to prevent groundwater depletion, no fresh water aquaculture farm shall be permitted to use water drawn from bore wells except for supplementing the losses from evaporation, seepage etc. But, clause 7.2 says that fertile agriculture lands shall not be permitted for conversion into fresh water aquaculture ponds except in cases where agriculture lands are less productive, fallow, low lying, prone to water logging etc. The provisions of the WALTA Act, 2002 require permissions from the authorities to use bore wells. But, the activity of using the bore well saline water under the guise of replenishing/supplementing the evaporated and seepage water even through the bore well water amply demonstrated that the saline water is required only to grow L.Vannamei shrimp to maintain 0.5 ppt saline water and it also requires oxygen. But, the fresh water fish does not require replenishment of water from bore wells to supplement the oxygen as the petitioners' fish tanks are being maintained through canal water and fresh water can be supplemented through the canal water only. On inspection by the respondents also, it is found that the petitioners are unauthorizedly cultivating L.Vannamei shrimp in saline water drawn from bore wells without possessing the required permissions from the competent authority as per the guidelines prescribed in G.O.Ms.No.7 dated 16.03.2013 as amended by G.O.Ms.No.15 dated 26.05.2015.

13. In those circumstances, this Court felt it appropriate to dispose of all the writ petitions giving liberty to the petitioners to approach the 4th respondent - Fisheries Development Officer or competent authority to get the required endorsement on the existing permissions for doing fresh water aquaculture only and the petitioners are also directed to give an undertaking in the form of affidavit to the aforesaid authority that they will not resort to any unauthorized culture of L.Vannamei shrimp and use of bore wells under the guise of replenishment or supplementing the evaporated water as there is no necessity of bore well water as the lands are situated in submergible or inundated and there is sufficient canal water. As it appears that bore wells are dug only for the purpose of rearing the shrimp culture with saline water, in the event of petitioners resorting for unauthorized L.Vannamei shrimp culture, the respondent authorities are at liberty to inspect the petitioners' fish tanks and conduct mediatorsnama/panchanama with two independent witnesses along with officers. Based on the said mediatorsnama/panchanama, the authorities shall give notice and consider explanations if any given and thereafter pass appropriate reasoned order as per the provisions of Act 29 of 2020 and the Rules made thereunder directing the petitioners to stop shrimp culture, otherwise they will be liable for penal action and their authorization is also liable for cancellation. The undertaking shall be given within a period of two (2) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The respondent authorities are directed to consider their application for endorsement and renewal of existing permissions as per the provisions of the Act 29 of 2020, within a period of four (4) weeks thereafter. The respondents are at liberty to take appropriate action to close down and removal of the existing bore wells and electricity supply connection as the existing bore wells are appears to be unauthorized and contrary to the provisions of the WALTA Act, 2002.