SRINIVASA (INLAND FISHERMEN) MATHSYA PARISRAMIKA SAHAKARA SANGAM Vs. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF FISHERIES AND EX-OFFICIO COOPERATIVE DEPUTY REGISTRAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Writ Petition was filed to declare the proceedings No.85/C/05, dated 10.03.2007 of the first respondent deleting the Bejjupuram village from the area of operation of the petitioner by amendment to bye-law No.1 as illegal, arbitrary and irregular.

(2.) The petitioner which is a society formed in the year 1973 with 25 members with an area of operation of Chinnarompivalasa, Mulapaka, Pedaraopalli, Subhadrapuram and Bejjupuram and 10 other minor villages with an extent of 66.08 hectares in the area of Devulavani cheruvu. But it is stated that the actual water spread area is only 40 hectares. The entire 40 hectares is situated in Bejjupuram village. The other tanks in other villages normally do not contain any water and there is no possibility of growth of fish in the small tanks situated in other villages. So the only source of living for the 20 families of the society is from the tank of Devulavani cheruvu. The said tank is a Government tank. While so, some villagers of Bejjupuram submitted a representation on 09.05.2005 to the 1st respondent seeking permission to start a new Inland Fishermen Cooperative Society at Bejjupuram and for allotting Devulavani cheruvu as the area of operation by deleting it from the petitioner society. There upon the 1st respondent directed the Fisheries Development Officer, Ranasthalam for sending a feasibility report on their application and the Fisheries Development Officer without serving any notice on society submitted a report in letter No.57/06 dated 18.08.2006 stating that the petitioner society did not respond to the notices expressing one way or the other for formation of another Fishermen Cooperative Society at Bejjupuram. Therefore, he reported that there was no objection to the formation of such society. Since, no notice was issued to the petitioner society, they could not respond to it and hence objection to the formation of the society does not arise. Based on the report, the 1st respondent issued a notice to the society on 21.09.2006 calling upon them to amend their bye-law No.1 by deleting Bejjupuram village from the area of operation. After receiving the said notice, the petitioner called for a general body meeting of the society on 25.09.2006. In the said general body meeting, the members of the society unanimously resolved to reject the proposal. The petitioner society also produced the copies of the final audit report pertaining to the year 2005-06 showing the actual income and loss from the tanks and the affect due to deletion of Bejjupuram area. The 1st respondent without considering the resolution and the representations, by proceedings No.85/C/2005 dated 10.03.2007 annulled the resolution dated 25.09.2006 of the petitioner society and amended bye-law No.1 of the society in exercise of powers under Section 16(5) of the A.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1964. As a result, the petitioner society is having 14 villages and Bejjupuram village is deleted from the area of operation.

(3.) The 1st respondent filed a counter stating that the petitioner society was registered on 21.09.1979 with 20 members and at present there are only 20 members in the society, but not 25 as stated in the affidavit. It is also stated that the society was formed in 1979 but not in 1973 as stated in the affidavit of the petitioner. The water spread area is 170 hectares out of 233.96 hectares of area. Out of the said water spread area, Devulavani cheruvu of Bejjupuram village is having a departmental tank of 66.08 hectares, out of which 40 hectares is water spread area. After deleting the said tank also there remains 167.88 hectares area with 130 hectares of water spread area relating to Panchayat tanks. It is not correct to state that the other tanks will not normally contain any water and as such there is no possibility to grow fish in the said small tanks. Murapaka and China Murapaka Panchayats tanks are having water sources and they are being assessed rentals by rental fixation committee concerned for growing fishery wealth in those tanks. But they have to obtain Fishery Rights from the concerned Panchayats as per G.O.Rt.No.546 P & R (Pts. IV) Department, dated 25.03.1999. The villagers of Bejjupuram consisting of 81 persons comprising of SCs and BCs put in a representation to the Assistant Director of Fisheries on 09.05.2005 for organization of Inland Fishermen Cooperative Society in their village with Devulavani cheruvu and Gorlevani cheruvu duly deleting them from the petitioner's society. The proposals were referred to Fisheries Development Officer, Ranasthalam for feasibility report and he issued a notice to the society on 01.07.2005, which was acknowledged by the petitioner on 01.07.2005 itself. Thereafter also several notices were issued by the Fisheries Development Officer and ultimately a registered notice was sent on 21.07.2005 for the above said purpose and even after acknowledgement of the same, the petitioner did not respond. After one year, the Fisheries Development Officer, Ranasthalam, submitted a report on 18.08.2006 stating that the petitioner society did not respond to the several notices and the fishery wealth of departmental tank of Devulavani cheruvu is being enjoyed by a middle man. Though the area of operation of the society is confined to 5 villages, all members on roll belong to only one village i.e., Chinnarompivalasa. Based on the feasibility report dated 18.08.2006 of the Fisheries Development Officer, Ranasthalam, the Assistant Director of Fisheries, Srikakulam issued notice under Sections 16 and 31-A to resolve in general body and obtain opinion of members for deletion of Bejjupuram village from the area of operation of the society for organization of new society at Bejjupuram. The notice also refers to enrollment of new members of other villages. The society did not heed to the suggestion for enrollment, but in the general body meeting on 25.09.2006, attended by 15 members, the members opposed the deletion of Bejjupuram village from the area of operation of the society. On verification, it is noticed that no member other than from the Chinnarompivalasa village is enjoying the benefit from the society and the new members are not being enrolled from other villages with selfish motives. Though there is sufficient water resource, the proposal has come from Harijans and Neyyala Caste (Fishermen) people of Bejjupuram village. It is further stated that the existing members in the petitioner society are not fishermen by caste. It is noticed that the society is working detrimental to the cooperative spirit and it was felt, that an amendment to bye-law No.1 for deletion of Bejjupuram village from the area of operation of the petitioner society, necessary and desirable in the interests of cooperative movement.