Disposed

T. Chenga Reddy s/o late Narasa Reddy Aged about 55 v. The Commissioner of Fisheries Government

Andhra Pradesh HC3 Jan 2024WP/3875/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order disposed of a writ petition seeking admission for eligible fishermen into a cooperative society. The High Court directed authorities to admit petitioners who were identified as skilled fishermen, allowing them to carry out their profession.

What did the court decide?

Directed respondent authorities to admit petitioners as members of the Sri Baidevathamma Fishermen Cooperative Society if eligible per prescribed rules.

T. Chenga Reddy s/o late Narasa Reddy Aged… — Service and Employment | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATl IN THE HIGH Jurisdiction)

¶4

THURSDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO: 3875 OF 2013

¶8

Between;

¶9

T, Chenga Reddy s/o late Narasa Reddy, Aged about 55, years Occ ;

¶10

4, ?'Munf"s/o Balarami

¶11

® H?o Challapale. village, SrIKalahasthi Mandal, Chittoor District). ...PETITIONERS

¶12

AND

¶13

1 . The Commissioner of Fisheries, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Santhinagar, Hyderabad.

¶14

2 The District Collector, Chittoor District, Chittoor. . D.stnc

¶15

1. ^he FisLries Development Officer, Tirupati, Chittoor 4.5 TheSriby itsBaidevathammaAssistantPresidentDirectorK. RamiFishermenof Reddy,Fisheries,Cooperative,KodandaramapuramChittoor, ChittoorSoc y village,•> 3Srikalahasthij[,g|ahasthi3,,^ ,ep Mandal,Chittoor District. ...RESPONDENTS

¶16

Potition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India^{prayingthatinthe} Tankof theand5“ therespondentinaction ofsootetythe respondentas per theNo. 1 to __ p n°:“"Se^1rtMENTMs No 74 ANIMAL 19 (g) of r,T2ri'^bi?1sLgTa“malattd;!r^atrvL^®f a'rticii 14 and

¶17

G.O.Ms.No.74 animal husbandry, dairy development & FISHERIES (F“ '' ■ the interest of justice. II) department dated; 21-10-2011 in

¶18

l.A. NO: 1 DF 2013(WPMP. NO' 4fi28 OF 201

¶19

Petition under Section 151 CPC io the affidavit filed in support of P®'' " ..55 of admission and admit the directpetitionersthe respondentsand other eligibleto completepersons theas members of the respondent society forth with pending disposal of the writ petition.

¶20

counsel for the Petitioners; SRI A. CHANDRAIH NAIDU

¶21

.1 to 4; GP FOR FISHERIES Counsel for the Respondent Nos Counsel for the Respondent No.5: SRI G. VIJAYA BABU The Court made the following: ORDER

¶22

HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE V.SUJATHA

¶23

WRIT PETITION No.3875 of 2013

¶24

ORDER:

¶25

The present Writ Petition came to be filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the^following relief:-

¶26

“...to issue a writ, order or orders more particularly^one " in the nature of a writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not admitting the petitioners and other eligible persons as members of the 5'^ respondent Society and thereby not allowing them to carry their profession of fishing in Thondamandu Tank and the inaction of The respondent No. 1 to 4 to need out the bogus members^of the 5‘^ respondent society as per the provisions of G.O.Ms.No.74 ANIMAL HUSBANDRY, DAIRY DEVELOPMENT & FISHERIES (F-II) DEPARTMENT dated 21.10.2011, as illegal, arbitrary, malafide, violative of article 14 and 19(g) of the constitution^of India apart from violative of principles natural justice and consequentially direct the respondent to admit^the eligible persons including the petitioners as members^of the 5'^ respondent society and to take action to veed out the bogus members of the respondent society as per the provisions of G.O.Ms.No.74 ANIMAL HUSBANDRY, DAIRY DEVELOPMENT FISHERIES (F-II) DEPARTMENT dated 21.10.2011 in the interest of justice and pass....

¶27

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Government Pleader for Fisheries appearing for the respondents and perused the material on record.

¶28

Brief facts of the case are that the petitioners are^the eligible fishermen residing at K.Venkatapuram, Kalujumitta

¶29

hamlet of Challapalem Gram Panchayat. The Thonamanadu

¶30

¶31

Tank is the biggest Tank in the Chittoor District, its water spread is about 1200 hectares and it has been catering^the irrigation water to thousands of acres situated in its surroundings. Thereafter, one Mr.K.Rami Reddy, S/o^Bathi Reddi, R/o Kondandaramapuram has registered a society under the name and style of Sri Baidevathamma Fishermen Cooperative Society in the year 1999 and subsequently^the final registration of the society was made in the year 2000, the total number of members in the said society does^not exceed 20 members. It is further stated that in spite of several representations to the respondent No.5-Society, Mr.Rami Reddy being the president of the society did not entertain any application to enroll eligible person^asmember of the society. Thereafter, one Mr.D.Bathi Reddy, the^then Surpanch of Thondamanadu Gram Panchayat filed a revision before the Government questioning the registration of the respondent No.5-Society and after conducting enquiry • the Government ’ on 20.12.2021 has set aside the final registration of the society. Challenging the same,^Mr.K.Rami Reddy, filed W.P.No. 113/2002, wherein this Court allowed and remitted the matter to the Government to decide afresh as per law. Having considered the merits, the Government vide Memo No.4019/Fish.II-(l)/2001-9 dated 22.09.2006, once again set aside the registration of the respondent^No.5-

¶32

3 Society. Questioning the same the respondent No.5 filed W.P.No.25089 of 2006, which was allowed by an order^dated 12.03.2012, holding that the objection of the Sarpanch is not time barred but he has no locus standi as the tank in issue is a major tank and it does not vest in Gram Panchayat. Thereafter, in view of the pendency of the registration of the society, whenever the petitioner approached the respondent-society for admission, they are not allowing them for admission.

¶33

While the matter being so, the petitioners submitted^a representation dated 31.12.2012, to the respondent authorities explaining the action of the president of the respondent No.5-Society in not enrolling the eligible members as members of the society. Thereafter the respondent No. 1 forwarded a list of names including the names of the petitioners to the respondent No.5 for enrolling the eligible candidate as members of the society. In spite of several directions, the respondent-society has not taken any action in enrolling the members. Thereafter the respondent Nos.l and 2 directed the respondent No.4/Assistant Director of Fisheries to conduct skill test to all eligible fishermen including the present members of the respondent No.5-society. Accordingly, respondent No.4 > addressed a le'tter to the respondent No. 1 requesting him to depute an-

¶34

¶35

observer to conduet the skill test. Thereby the respondent No.l vide Memo No.l7/1.2/2012-3 dated 03.01.2013, deputed the Assistant Director of Fisheries from the^Head Office as the observer of the skill test. Thereafter, by virtue of the orders dated 17.12.2012 passed in W.P.No.30280^of 2012, the president of the respondent-Society got lease^hold rights for fishing in Thondamanadu Tank. Aggrieved by the same the present Writ Petition is filed.

¶36

fi.

¶37

Respondent No.5 filed counter affidavit duly admitting the facts stated by the petitioners and further stated^that questioning the de-registration order in proceedings NO.1287/B/2003, dated 20.04.2004 passed by the respondent No.4, the respondent No.5 filed W.P.No.^10469of 2004 w^herein this Court by an order dated 13.03.2012 allowed the writ petition and held that the Society was t validly registered. Thereafter, the petitioners submitted a representation to the respondent No.4 seeking admission into the respondent No.5-Society. It is further stated that the said representation is not given in the prescribed^J-form which is essential and further the petitioner without approaching the respondent-society submitted a representation to the respondent No.4. It is further^statedin the counter that the petitioner Nos.l, 3 and 4 are agriculturists, the petitioner No.2 is a driver and^thename

¶38

¶39

¶40

of the petitioner No.5 is not mentioned in the list forwarded by the respondent No.3 for conducting of skill test. In view of the same, as per Model Byelaw No.4(a) & (b) and^also as per G.O.Ms.No.74, dated 21.10.2011, the petitioner^arenot eligible for becoming the members of the Fishermen Co operative Society and also for attending the skill test conducted by the respondent authorities. It is also further stated that as the petitioners have not submitted individual applications to the Registrar in the prescribed J-Form,^the petitioners are not eligible for membership ini the respondent-society and requested this Court to dismiss the writ petition. 6. Today, when the matter is taken up for hearing, learned counsel for the petitioners stated the process of applying for membership in the co-operative society^and referred to Sections 19(2-A) and 19(3) of the A.P. Co operative Societies Act, 1964. *

¶41

For better appreciation Sections 19(2-A) and 19(3)^of the A.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1964 are extracted here under:

¶42

....19(2-A): Any person duly qualiifed for admission as a member under the provisions of this Act, the rules and the bye-laws, may apply through the Registrar for membership of such societies andⁱⁿ such forms as may be prescribed and such person shall be deemed to have been admitted as a member of the society from the date of receipt of the application in the office of the society.

¶43

19(3): ([The Managing Committee] of a society shall not] without sufficient cause, refuse admission to membership to any person duly qualiifed there for

¶44

¶45

under the provisions of this Act and its bye-laws. Where admission is so refused, the decision, with reasons there for, shall be communicated by the registered post to such person within iffteen days of the date of the decision, or within sixty days from^the date of his application for membership, whichever is earlier. ”

¶46

Both the Sections 19(2-A) and 19(3) of the A.P. Co

¶47

operative Societies Act, 1964 would make it clear that there are two modes available to the qualified persons seeking admission as members under the provisions of the Act,^rules and the byelaws made therein. After selection of the candidates by the 3-Men Committee under G.O.Ms.No.74 dated 21.10.2011 read with Byelaw No.4-A of the Act, the Managing Committee of the Society have to convene a General Body Meeting and take a decision by keeping in view the viability/ feasibility of the Society to admit the fishermen selected by 3-Men Committee and accordingly, the petitioners herein have repeatedly approached the Society on variops occasions and as their requests was rejected, when the petitioners approached the respondent No.l/ Commissioner of Fisheries, Santhinagar, Hyderabad, he issued proceedings vide Memo No. 17/1.2/2012-3,^dated 03.01.2023, appointing the Assistant Director of Fisheries at Head Office as observer for conducting skill test to the eligible persons for becoming members in the respondent No.5-Society.

¶48

% 7 7. On the other hand, learned Government Pleader for Fisheries appearing for the respondent Nos.l to 4 submitted attended the skill test conducted by that total 30 persons the respondent authorities, out of which 27 persons were identified as skilled fishermen and after following the entire procedure prescribed under the A.P.C.S Act, 1964 and Byefor Fisheries provisionally law 4-A the Assistant Director on 29.11.1999. It is re gistered the respondent-Society further stated that the said Society is consisting of fourteen of 1200 hectares and (14) villages having water spread area the existing membership of the society are only 20 in number. 8. In view of the above submissions, as the petitioners. being eligible members, who also belong to the fishermen making attempts since* several years community have been of the fact that upon the to approach the Society and in view directions of the respondent No.l, the skill test was out of which 27 persons were conducted to 30 persons considered as skilled fishermen, instead of keeping the writ petition is pending, this Court feels it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition, directing the respondent authonties to allow and admit the petitioners as members of Sri Fishermen Cooperative Society, if the Baidevathamma the existing rules found eligible as per petitioenrs are

¶49

■ A

¶50

8 prescribed under A.P.Cooperative Societies Act, 1964 without interference of the respondent No.5-Society.

¶51

Accordingly, with the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶52

Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in this Writ

¶53

Petition shall stand closed.

¶54

To,

¶55

//TRUE COPY//

¶56

SD/- N. NAGAMMA ASSISTANT^GiSTRAR SECTION OFFICER

¶57

The Commissioner of Fisheries Government, of Andhra Pradesh Vijayawada.

¶58

The District Collector, Chittoor District, Chittoor.

¶59

The Fisheries Development Officer, Tirupati, Chittoor District.

¶60

The Assistant Director of Fisheries, Chittoor, Chittoor District.

¶61

One CC to Sri A. Chandraih Naidu, Advocate [OPUC]

¶62

One CC to Sri G. Vijaya Babu, Advocate [OPUC]

¶63

Two CCs to GP for Fisheries, High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT]

¶64

Three CD Copies. ’ Ssb MBT

■ u-

HIGH COURT

VS,J

DATED;04/01/2024

ORDER

WP.No.3875 of 2013

DISPOSING OF THE W.P. WITHOUT COSTS

T. Chenga Reddy s/o late Narasa Reddy Aged about 55 v. The Commissioner of Fisheries Government

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T. Chenga Reddy s/o late Narasa Reddy Aged about 55 v. The Commissioner of Fisheries Government

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Simhadri Educational Society Group of Institutions Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh Represented by is Principal

Bondada Pullayya Vs the State of Ap

Pydah Kaushik College of Engineering Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Vanhya Jayaramudu Naik. Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh.

Aditya College of Engineering and Technology Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

A.Vinod and 2 Ors. Vs Commr. of Fisheries and 3 Ors.