PAPANASAM FISHERMEN CO-OP. SOCIETY LTD Vs. COLLECTOR OF THANJAVUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 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.) MR . V. P. Raman relied on the proviso to Rule 2 of the Tamil Nadu Inland Fisheries (Lease and Licence) Rules, 1972, and contended that, if the lease was entered into on a direction from the fisheries department, the rule would have no application. That is not the effect of the proviso. Its effect as we understand, is that it takes out of the scope of the rule a case of departmental fishing or fishing by the department itself. The proviso has no other effect. These are cases to which Rule 2 has clear application. We hold, therefore, that the writ petitions were maintainable.