Case Note & Summary
The writ petition was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by five petitioners representing 222 persons engaged in purse seine fishing along the Maharashtra coast. They challenged the order dated 05.02.2016 passed by the Joint Secretary to the Government of Maharashtra in the Agriculture, Animal Husbandry, Dairy Development and Fisheries Department, issued under section 4(1) of the Maharashtra Marine Fishing Regulation Act, 1981. The impugned order regulated fishing in territorial waters by prohibiting issuance of new licences for purse seine/ring seine fishing, restricting purse seine fishing to September to December within Zones II, III and IV, and imposing mesh size restrictions. The petitioners, belonging to the traditional fishermen community, claimed that they had improvised their fishing techniques and adopted purse seine nets for livelihood. Earlier notifications dated 10.12.1987 and 13.10.1999 prohibiting purse seine gear were struck down by the Bombay High Court on 09.03.2004 in Abdul Hamid v. State of Maharashtra, reported in 2004 (5) Bom.C.R. 766, and the State's appeal against that judgment was pending as Civil Appeal No.8334 of 2004 before the Supreme Court without any stay. The petitioners applied for licences under section 6(1) of the 1981 Act, but the Licensing Officer refused to grant licences citing a letter from the Commissioner of Fisheries dated 08.08.2012. The National Green Tribunal passed orders in 2015 initially restraining fresh licences but later clarifying that competent authorities should decide independently on merit. The Bombay High Court in writ petitions held the Commissioner's letter prima facie illegal and directed the Licensing Officer to decide applications uninfluenced by the meeting of 03.08.2012. The Licensing Officer again refused on 26.11.2015, but the Commissioner of Fisheries set aside those refusals on 28.01.2016 and directed fresh decision. However, the State issued the impugned order on 05.02.2016. The petitioners argued that the order was ultra vires the 1981 Act, violated their fundamental rights under Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 21, and was actuated by malice. The State justified the order by contending that it was issued after consultation with the Advisory Committee constituted under section 3 of the 1981 Act and based on an exhaustive study by an Expert Committee headed by Dr. Somvanshi, which submitted its report on 10.05.2012. The State relied on State of Kerala v. Joseph Antony, AIR 1994 SC 721, to argue that the restrictions were reasonable under Article 19(6) and that there was no complete ban, only prohibition on new licences. The court examined the statutory framework, previous judicial decisions, and the expert committee report. The extracted text ends at paragraph 15.7 and does not include the final analysis or the operative decision, hence the final outcome of the writ petition is not mentioned.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Reasonable Restrictions - Article 19(1)(g) and Article 19(6) Constitution of India - Restriction on purse seine fishing licences - Petitioners challenged order as violative of Article 19(1)(g); State contended restrictions are reasonable under Article 19(6) relying on State of Kerala v. Joseph Antony - Court examined whether prohibition on new licences and seasonal restrictions amount to reasonable restriction (Paras 14-15.2) B) Fisheries Law - Regulation of Fishing - Section 4(1) Maharashtra Marine Fishing Regulation Act, 1981 - State Government empowered to regulate/restrict/prohibit fishing in specified areas - Impugned order dated 05.02.2016 issued under section 4(1) restricting purse seine/ring seine fishing including non-grant of new licences - Petitioners alleged ultra vires; State claimed valid exercise after consultation with Advisory Committee (Paras 3, 15, 15.1) C) Administrative Law - Advisory Committee Consultation - Sections 3, 3(2) Maharashtra Marine Fishing Regulation Act, 1981 - Consultation with Advisory Committee mandatory for regulation - State claimed compliance by constituting Advisory Committee and obtaining advice; Expert Committee headed by Dr. Somvanshi conducted study and submitted report dated 10.05.2012 (Paras 15, 15.5-15.7) D) Judicial Review - Ultra Vires and Malice - Articles 14 and 21 Constitution of India - Challenge to executive order on grounds of ultra vires, malice, and violation of right to livelihood - Petitioners alleged order actuated by business rivalry; court examined whether order exceeded statutory powers and whether procedural fairness was observed (Paras 9-14)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the order dated 05.02.2016 issued under section 4(1) of the Maharashtra Marine Fishing Regulation Act, 1981 is ultra vires the Act and violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution.
Law Points
- State Government has power under Section 4(1) of Maharashtra Marine Fishing Regulation Act
- 1981 to regulate fishing
- restrictions on purse seine fishing may be reasonable under Article 19(6) of Constitution
- consultation with Advisory Committee under Section 3 required
- prior judicial decisions binding unless stayed
