Dismissed

The Primary Fishermen Cooperative Society Limited v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC27 Mar 2023WP/42766/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition under Article 226 and Section 151 CPC filed by a fishermen cooperative society against officials restraining them from catching fish in the Nandimedharam Reservoir. The Court held that the dispute involved factual questions on jurisdiction under the Telangana Co-operative Societies Act, 1964, which must be resolved by competent tribunals, and thus extraordi

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed without costs; freedom granted to petitioner to avail remedies available under law.

The Primary Fishermen Cooperative Society Limited… — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³³⁰³ ]

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE^{STATEOF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

I,4ONDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH^{DAY OF MARCH} TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY^THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE^{J SREENIVAS RAO}

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO:42766 oF 2022

¶7

Between:

¶8

The Primary Fishermen Cooperative^{SocietyLimited,C-hamanpally Village,} Dharmaram' Mandal, Peddadally^{District.Rep. by its PresidentKumarapu} Ramulu S/o: Rajaiah, aged^{abdut 72 yeas,.F/oH.No-1-108, Chamanpally} Village, Dharmaram Mandal,^{Peddapally District.}

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

The State of Telangana,^{Rep by PrincipaLSecle-laryAniqalHusbandry, Dairy} Development Fishdries, Secretiriat^{at B R.K.R Bhavan,Tank Bund'} Hyderabad.

¶12

The Commissioner of^{Fisheries, Shanthi Nagar, Hyderabad, Telangana}

¶13

The District Collector,^{Peddapally District,At Peddapally.}

¶14

The Revenue Divisional Officer,^Peddapally.

¶15

The Assistant Director^{of Fisheries/District FisheriesOfficer, Peddapally} District at Peddapally, Telangana^State.

¶16

Fisheries Cooperative^{Society,Chamana Palli, Dharmaram Mandal,} Peddapally District,^{Rep. by its President}

¶17

...RESPONDENTS

¶18

Petition under Article 226 of^{the Constitutionof lndia prayingthat in the} circumstances stated^{in the affidavitfiledtherewith,the High Court maybe} pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order^{or direction more particularlyone in} the nature of writ of^{Mandamusdeclaring the actionof the officialrespondentsin} not allowing the^{petitionersocietymembers to catch the fish by considering the} representation of the^{petitioner Societydatedo4lo1l2o22as arbilraty, illegal and} in violation of law and consequently^{direct the respondentto permit the petitioner} Society to catch the^{fish in the interest of justice.}

¶19

lA NO: 1 OF 2022

¶20

Petition under section 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired in support of the petition, the High court may be preased to direct the respondents to forthwith aflow the petitioner society to catch the fish within their virrage rimits of chamanpaly by considering the representation of the petitioner dated 04t0112022 pending disposal of the writ petition.

¶21

Counsel for the^petition"., a,{.!.,'fofl, KUMAR VADLAKoNDA FOR p. SAJAN

¶22

counsel for the Respondent No.1 to 5: sRr. RAJA sRlpATHr RAI, spEcrALGp FOR ANIMALHUSBANDARY

¶23

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶24

HON,BLE SRI JUSTICE J.SREENIVAS^RAO

¶25

W.P.No.42766 OF 2o22

¶26

ORDER:

¶27

This writ petition is filed seeking Writ of^Mandamaus declaring the action of the otficial^{respondents in not allowingthe} petitioner society members to catch fish^{by considering the} representation of the petitioner^{society dated 04.01.2022as} arbitrary, illegal and violation^{of law and consequentlydirect the} respondent to permit thc petitioner society^{to catchthe hsh.}

¶28

Heard Sri Ravi Kumar^{Vadlakonda, Iearnedcounsel,} representing Sri P. Sajan Kumar,^{learnedcounsel for the petitioner} and Sri Raja Sripathi Rao, learned^{Special GovernmentPleader} appearing on behalf of respondent^{Nos.l to 5.}

¶29

Learned counsel for t.he^{petitionersubmits that petitioner} societ5r submitted representation on 04.O1.2022 to^respondent No.S requesting to allow the^petitioner society^{members to catch} the fish in Nandimedharam Reservoir.^He lurther^{submits that} members of the petitioner society are residents of^Chamanapalli Village and their lands were acquired for Nandimedharam reservoir and they were paid nominal compensation^bythe Government and Nandimedharam back^{watercovered the part of}

¶30

¶31

the village and they are catching rrsh in Lhe said back *,aters since four (4) years

¶32

He further submits that respondent No.6 society members are restraining the members of petitioner society from catching fish in back water of Nandimedharam project. After receiving representation dated 04.1.2022, respondent No.5 has not passed any order.

¶33

Respondent No.S hled counter on his behalf and on bchalf of respondent Nos. l, 2 and 3 also, wherein hc specihcall], stated that the membership of the petitioner society is I 7 as per the byeIaq's of the society. The area of operaLion of the societv consists of following village and tanks.

¶34

Nameof the village	Narneof thetank
Chamanpalli	JonnakuntaMattu KalvakindaMattu Kothakunta Appa Lodhikunta

¶35

He further submits that the request of the petitioner society to permit them to catch the fish in tlte back water of Nandimedharam Reservoir was already rejected as the Nanciimeciharam Reservoir and tanks falls under area ol

¶36

operation of respondent No.6^{society and no lands of the} members of the^{petitionersocietyhave been submerged in the} said reservoir.

¶37

The learned counsel for^{the petitioner contendedthat the} respondent No.S has not^{passedany orderbasing on the} representation submitted^{by the petitionersociety.}

¶38

Per contra, the Learned^{Special Government Pieader} submits that the^{petitioner society is not entitledfor grant of} fishing rights in back^{water of NandimedharamReservoirand the} said reservoir and^{tanks under the area oloperation of} respondent No.6 society^{and respondentNo.5 has already} rejected the claim of the^{petitioner society and alsoissued notice} dated 12.O1.2022^{and the writ petitionliled by the petitioner is} not maintainable under^law.

¶39

g. Admiteddly, respondent^{No.5 specilicallystated inthe} counter affidavit that^{Nandimedhararn Reservoir and tanksare} not under the area of^{operationof the petitionersociety but the} same are under the area^{of operation o[ respondentNo 6 society} and no lands of the members^{of the petitioner society havebeen} submerged in the said^{reservoir and themembers ofthe} petitioner socieEy are not entitled^{Lo claim hshing rights in the} J?

¶40

¶41

said n,ater body and further stated that the area of operation of the petitioner society consists of four tanks namely Jonnakunta Mattu, Kalvakinda Mattu, Kothakunta and Appa Lodhi Kunta respectively and pedda cheruvu (Nandimedharam Reservoir) comes within the area of operation of respondent No.6 socicty and the same was not denied by the petitioner by liling any reply.

¶42

[r is already stated supra that the petitioner is claiming fishing rights in back watcr of Nandimedharam Rescrvoir, whereas the respondent No.s specifica y denied the craim ot thc petitioner society on the ground that the said reservoir cornes within thc area of operation of respondent No.6 socicty. The dispute raised by the petitioner is purely disputed question of fact and that has to be resolved by the competent Court or Tribunal under the provisions of the Telangana Co opcratirre Societies Act, 1964 and the petitioner is not entitled to seek the relief sought in the writ petition by invoking extraordinarv jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of Lhe Constitution of Ind ia

¶43

I 1. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. However granting liberg to the petitioner to avail the remedies as available undcr lau,. No costs

¶44

¶45

As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications, if any,

¶46

pending in this writ petition, shall stand closed.

¶47

SD/-A.V.S. P AD ASSISTANT REGI RAR //TRUE COPY// sECTloN FFICER

¶48

To,

¶49

One CC to Sri. P. Sajan Kumar, Advocate IOPUCj 2. Two CCs to GP for Animal Husbandary, High Cou( for the State of Telangana. [OUII

¶50

Two CD Copies

TJ SB )$)-

HIGH COURT

DATED:2710312023

ORDER

,,:l''
'l '. .r'
n i!r!1
"l 3 hfri - ^ ^ iii(J
..',
...i;..!'
\t,:''\1;:,

¶56

WP.No.42766 of 2022

¶57

DISMISS!NG THE WRIT PETITION

¶58

WITHOUT COSTS.

¶59

.^-3
{-

The Primary Fishermen Cooperative Society Limited v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Primary Fishermen Cooperative Society Limited v. The State of Telangana

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

Venus I.T.I. Students Welfare Association, Vs The National Council for Vocational Training

Yennaboina Venkateshwarlu and another Vs The State of Telangana and 5 others

Mohammed Meraj Ahmed, Hyd. Vs Secy., Forest Dept. and 2 Ors.

Anumula Krishna Vs The State of Telangana and 2 others

Pillarisetti Harinath Babu, Krishna District and Another Vs the Special Deputy Collector, Khammam District and 2OTS

Madakam Jogaiah, Khammam Dist and 3 Others Vs Collector and Dist Magistrate, Khammam Dist and Another