INTERNATIONAL TRADING COMPANY Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These four (4) Letters Patent Appeals involving similar questions of law and fact were taken up for hearing together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

(2.) The basic fact of the matter is being noticed from L.P.A. No. 610 of 2001. The appellant is a company incorporated under the Companies Act. The appellants admittedly applied for and were granted respective permits in terms of the provisions of The Maritime Zones of India (Regulation of Fishing by Foreign Vessels) Act, 1981 ( hereinafter for the sake of brevity referred to as 'the said Act') and the Maritime Zones of India (Regulation of Fishing by Foreign Vessels) Rules, 1982 ( hereinafter for the sake of brevity referred to as 'the said Rules'). The applications for grant of permit in respect of separate vessels have been dealt with differently, but the Permit to Fish in the Exclusive Economic Zone of India was granted in the prescribed form. The said Permit bearing No. 21002- 25/92 FPI(Fy) dated 02.09.1994 as contained in Annexure - P/4 to LRA No. 610 of 2001 initially pertaining to Deep Sea Fishing Vessel, namely, 'VILLA DE MOGOR' was substituted by respondents vide Permit bearing No. 21002-26/92- FY(IND) dated 21.08.1998 as contained in Annexure - P/5 to LPA No. 610 of 2001 in favour of the appellant's Deep Sea Fishing Vessel, namely, 'TEUCRO' was valid for a period of five years expired on 01.09.1999. The said Permit authorised the appellant to obtain on lease and operate the above stated Foreign Deep Sea Fishing Vessel in terms of the said Act and the said Rules, but the said Permit has allegedly not been renewed. It was further alleged that the said Permit issued under the said Act was granted in accordance with the Government of India policy relating to fishing of Deep Sea Resources in Indian Exclusive Economic Zone by leased Foreign Deep Sea Fishing Vessels and is valid for a period of 15 years w.e.f. 02.09.1994, as would be evident from the following records :-

(3.) The contention of the appellants in these cases is that the period of operation of the vessel having been fixed for 15 years, the grant of 5 years permit at the beginning was only for the purpose of finding out the efficacy of grant of such permit and no breach of conditions takes place and the term of such permit was to be extended automatically. It has further been contended that there exists a distinction between a chartered vehicle and the leased vehicle as would be evident from the fact that whereas in the case of a chartered vehicle, a period of 5 years is fixed but in the case of a leased vehicle, the same may be extended to a period of 15 years. Further contention of the petitioner is that the purported policy decision on the basis whereof the renewal permit had not been granted being contrary to the provisions of the said Act and the said Rules, the learned Single Judge erred in dismissing the writ petitions.