The High Court of Judicature at Madras dismissed a writ petition filed by a traditional fisherman seeking permission to use 'Surugu Valai' nets. The Court relied on an Inspection Report equating the net to the banned 'Purse Seine' and cited a 2001 order confirming the ban.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 10.11.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI
W.P.No.33831 of 2019
G.Gandhi
...Petitioner
vs.
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 1st Respondent to allow the Petitioner to fishing by using the 'Surugu Valai' as per Petitioner's representation dated 05.11.2019.
For Petitioner : Mr.D.Vijayakumar For Respondents 1 to 2 : Mr.M.R.Gokul Krishnan Government Advocate
For 3rd Respondent : Mr.D.Baskar
O R D E R
Petitioner has come up with this Writ Petition seeking a direction to the 1st Respondent to allow him to involve in fishing by using 'Surugu Valai', as per his representation dated
05.11.2019.
2.It is stated by the Petitioner that, he is a traditional fisherman involved in the job of fishing in the sea and is residing at Periyaneelangarai Kuppam. As the Respondents did not allow the Petitioner to involve in fishing in the sea using 'Surugu Valai', he made a representation to the Respondents on 05.11.2019 seeking permission to use the said net. According to the Petitioner, fishermen are using 'Surugu Valai' only in the months of 'Karthigai', 'Margali' and 'Thai', as fish caught in these months are sizeable, which increase their revenue. It is further stated by the Petitioner that, 'Surugu Valai' used for fishing, measures about 90 mm to 105 mm and the boat used for fishing having 5 to 7 members as a crew is totally different from the prohibited 'Purse seine' net.
3.Learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that, this Court may issue a direction to the 1st Respondent herein to consider and dispose of the Petitioner's representation dated 05.11.2019 within a stipulated time.
4.Learned Government Advocate appearing for Respondents 1 and 2, with reference to the counter Affidavit filed by the 1st Respondent, submitted that, there is no difference between 'Suruguvalai' and 'Surukkumadi' (Purse Seine) nets and it is the banned 'Purse Seine' net designated with different nomenclature to make a fake claim to slip away from the ban imposed on the net by the Government of Tamil Nadu. He further submitted that, 'Suruguvalai' and 'Surukkumadi' nets are the same and not different and that, the use of these types of fishing nets resulted in capture of fishes en mass by a group of fisherman without letting others to capture them using simple nets. Hence, he vehemently opposed to the grant of relief sought for by the Petitioner.
5.Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the material documents available on record.
6.On a perusal of the Inspection Report filed by the 1st Respondent herein, it is seen that, the net produced by the Petitioner for inspection is nothing but a purse seine net, which is used for catching large and small shoal forming pelagic fish, which, in turn, affects the livelihood of traditional fishermen. For better appreciation, relevant portion of the said Inspection Report is extracted hereunder:
5.It is submitted that, as per the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), Fisheries and Aquaculture Department, Rome; the description of a purse seine net is as follows:
“A purse seine is made of a long wall of netting framed with floatline and leadline (usually, of equal or longer length than the former) and having purse rings hanging from the lower edge of the gear, through which runs a purse line made from steel wire or rope which allow the pursing of the net. For most of the situation, it is the most efficient gear for catching large and small pelagic species that is shoaling.
The comparison of the purse seine net in general and the observation made during the inspection are as follows:
S.No. General Specification of a Observation purse seine during inspection 1 Long wall of netting 430 metres 2 Floatline and leadline Present 3 Purse rings at the leadline Present at every ' 6 metre interval
4 Purse line Present 5 Used for catching large and Yes small shoal forming pelagic species
7.Thus, the Inspection Report of the 1st Respondent is clear to the effect that, the net produced by the Petitioner is nothing but a Purse Seine net, which is banned in the territorial waters of the State. It is also seen that, the decision of the Government of Tamil Nadu to ban the usage of Purse Seine net was confirmed by this Court vide order dated 26.04.2001 passed in W.P.No.6760 of 2000, batch of cases. In view of the same, the request of the Petitioner to permit him to use 'Suruguvalai' is not maintainable in law.
Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected W.M.P.No.34346 of 2019 is closed.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CS-IV)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
(skt/aeb)
To:
+1cc to Mr.D.Vijayakumar, Advocate, S.R.No.58267 +1cc to Mr.D.Baskar, Advocate, S.R.No.58124 +1cc to the Government Pleader, S.R.No.58060
W.P.No.33831 of 2019
GSM(CO) RGA(21/01/2022)
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a writ direction should be issued allowing the petitioner to use 'Surugu Valai' nets for fishing despite a government ban on purse seine nets.
Whether the 'Surugu Valai' net alleged by the petitioner is substantially identical to the banned 'Purse Seine' net.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
W.P.No.6760 of 2000Referred¶30
G. Gandhi
The Assistant Director, Fisheries Department, Kancheepuram District
The Commissioner of Fisheries, Government of Tamil Nadu
The Central Institute of Fisheries Technology
M. Dhandapani
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
