GOLDEN AHAR LIMITED Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The grievance of the petitioner in the present writ petition is about refusal by the Government to renew the permit of the petitioner for purposes of fishing by using foreign vessels. Initially the petitioner was granted permit for five pairs of deep sea trawlers for a period of three years vide communication dated 31st August, 1982. The permit could be renewed for a further period of two years subject to certain conditions. The petitioner submits that it chartered five pairs of fishing trawlers from a foreign country in view of the said permit granted to it. It is further the case of the petitioner that it applied for permission to purchase foreign trawlers. The respondent granted the permission subject to the petitioner buying equal number of trawlers from an Indian source. According to the petitioner it made huge investments in this behalf. On the expiry of the period of three years for which the permit was initially granted, the petitioner applied for renewal of permit in July, 1985. In the meanwhile the Government had taken a decision to suspend chartering of foreign fishing vessels and, therefore, the request for extension of the permit for two years could not be granted. Admittedly the petitioner was deploying foreign vessels for fishing. In view of the commitments alleged to have been made by the petitioner and in view of the investments incurred by the petitioner, it kept on requesting for extension of the permit. Ultimately, vide letter dated 6th July, 1992 the respondent granted extension for one pair of trawlers for a period of about two years. The original permission was for five pairs of trawlers. The petitioner kept on requesting for permission for five pairs of trawlers but this request was not granted. The petitioner was not interested in utilising the permission granted by the Government for one pair of trawlers because according to the petitioner it was not economically viable. The petitioner has alleged in the petition that permission was granted to the other parties while the same was denied to the petitioner. The petitioner has challenged this action on the part of the Government in the present writ petition.

(2.) . In the counter affidavit filed by the respondent it has been pleaded that there was too much overcrowding by foreign fishing vessels which was destroying the traditional fishing community. There was lot of agitation from the traditional fishing community. In this view of the matter the Government constituted a Committee to consider all the aspects and make appropriate recommendations regarding deep sea fishing sector. The recommendations of the Committee were not accepted by the fishermen groups. The Government then constituted a Review Committee under the Chairmanship of Mr. P. Murari, a former Secretary to the Government of India. The Committee submitted its report on 8th February, 1996. The recommendations of the Committee were accepted by the Government. The main aspect for consideration before the Government was to safeguard the interests of the traditional fishermen. It has been further stated in the counter affidavit that the Government is in the process of formulating a new deep sea fishing policy and, therefore, the Government has decided not to renew or issue permits for charter/test fishing joint ventures/leasing etc. It is submitted that in view of this policy decision on the part of the Government the petitioner is not entitled to any relief. The allegations made in the writ petition about grant of permits to other parties while the same was denied to the petitioner have been expressly denied. It has been pointed out that as a matter of fact the petitioner was given extension for four vessels (one pair bull trawlers and two stern trawlers). It has been specifically mentioned in the counter affidavit that in no case a permission/extension of more than four vessels has been granted. The respondent has also stated in the counter affidavit that the extension of permit for two years was not as a matter of right, it was subject to condition and, therefore, the petitioner has no legal right to insist on the same. Admittedly the vessels used by the petitioner are of foreign make and under the government policy foreign vessels are not being allowed at all for the purposes for deep sea fishing in India.

(3.) . Our attention has been drawn to the recommendations of the Murari Committee. Some of them which are particularly relevant for the present purpose are as under: