THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.19958 OF 2001 Date: 05.02.2010 Between: Peda Gadimoga Marine Fishermen Co-operative Society Limited, rep., by its President Koppada Gangadharam and three others. … Petitioners. And The State of A.P. rep., by Principal Secretary Animal Husbandry, Dairy Development & Fisheries Dept, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad and three others. … Respondents. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.19958 OF 2001 ORDER: Heard Sri M.V. Suresh, learned Counsel for the petitioner. Neither the Government Pleader for Animal husbandry nor Sri P. Ashok Chakravarthy, Learned Counsel for the 4th respondent is present and as such this writ petition is disposed of on the basis of the material on record. The action of respondent Nos.1 to 3 in granting lease of Ac.37.50 cts to the 4th respondent for the Bay of Bengal programme Shrimp Culture Project at Polekurru of East Godavari District, as per G.O.Ms. No.91 Animal Husbandry, Dairy Development and Fisheries (Fish.II) Department, dated 26.07.2001, is under challenge in this writ petition as being illegal, void and unconstitutional. Certain Fishermen Cooperative Societies have invoked this Court’s jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India questioning the validity of G.O.Ms. No.91 dated 26.07.2001. While the first petitioner claims to have 300 members, the 2nd petitioner contends that its membership is 250. Likewise the 3rd petitioner claims to have 300 members and the 4th petitioner to have 200 members all of whom depend on fishing as their only source of livelihood. The 1st and the 3rd respondents are said to have drawn up a programme called the Bay of Bengal Shrimp Culture Project at Polekurru of East Godavari District. A paper publication was made in Eenadu dated 16.06.2001 whereby tenders were invited for various fish farms and, in so far as East Godavari District is concerned, item No.7 of the paper publication, under the head “East Godavari District Polekurru Fish Farm Phase-II project”, is said to relate to the training proposed to be imparted to all fishermen in Shrimp Culture as also to give them proper advice for the development of prawns and its sale. The petitioner contends that the paper publication is vague, no local publication was made and the President of the Gram Panchayat was also not informed. They would also contend that no notice was issued, the entire process of tender was conducted secretively and, thereafter, lease was granted to the 4th respondent. In the counter-affidavit filed by the Assistant Secretary to the Government, it is stated that the Shrimp Culture Project was developed in Tallarevu Mandal over an extent of 15 hectares of land located in Survey No.811 to study the pond design for water management for shrimp culture in coastal Andhra Pradesh; on the basis of the Government policy, of privatization and collection of user charges, fish seed/culture had been decided to be leased out; some of the members of the petitioner society were beneficiaries of such Shrimp Farms and, as none of them appeared before the Commissioner of Fisheries seeking any information, they could not now claim ignorance. It is stated that, by way of paper publication, tenders were invited from 29.06.2001 to 16.07.2001 for UNDP assisted Farm Phase II and that particulars had been made available in the tender schedule which could have been obtained from the department by the tenderers; and all details were mentioned and wide publicity was given through Eenadu Telugu daily which was widely circulated in Andhra Pradesh. It is stated that the Government had issued orders in G.O.Ms. No.91 for leasing of BOBP assisted farms, located in Sy. No.811, of 15 Hectares in Polekuru Island to Mangayamma Multipurpose Cooperative Society, Neeladripeta and not the UNDP shrimp farm (Phase-II) as published in tender notification. It is, however, admitted that BOBP Farm Phase-I has not yet been leased out to the 4th respondent. In their counter-affidavit the 4th respondent states that they are also registered under the Andhra Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act with registration No.923; their Society consists of 42 members; they had submitted a representation to the 3rd respondent to lease out the Bay of Bengal Programme of Shrimp culture Project at Polekurru of East Godavari District over an extent of 37.50 acres at the rate of Rs.1000/- per acre for a period of ten years and, on their request, the 3rd respondent had conducted a detailed enquiry and recommended grant of lease in their favour. The 4th respondent would submit that the paper publication in Eenadu newspaper dated 16.06.2001 related to Shrimp Culture Farm Phase-II, Polekuru which was developed with United Nations Development Project Financial Assistance over an extent of 35 hectares and was different from the Bay of Bengal Programme Development which was spread over an extent of 15 hectares in Sy. No.811 on Polekuru Island. They would state that, while there were two Shrimp Culture Farms in Polekuru viz., one developed with BOBP Shrimp Culture Project in Survey No.811 and the other developed with UNDP Finance Assistance which were called the centrally sponsored Scheme Phase-II, tenders were invited only for UNDP Assistance for Phase-II and not the one that had not been leased out in their favour. Sri M.V. Suresh, Learned Counsel for the petitioner, would contend that, since no tenders were invited and the project was handed over to the 4th respondent without giving adequate opportunity to all those who were interested to participate in the said project, the impugned G.O. was liable to be set aside. Learned Counsel would submit that, pursuant to the interim order passed by this Court as early as on 25.09.2001, the project had come to a stand-still and that the project work had not been handed over to the 4th respondent till date. It is evident from the counter-affidavits filed by the respondents that the petitioners, and others similarly situated, were denied an opportunity of participating in the BOBP programme and that the 3rd respondent had, without even giving wide publicity and without inviting bids, picked and chosen the 4th respondent for grant of lease. The impugned order in G.O.Ms. No.91, to the extent the 4th respondent was unduly favoured, necessitates being set aside. It is, however, open to respondent Nos.1 to 3 to issue a notification afresh, give wide publicity, invite offers from those interested and thereafter proceed further in accordance with law. The writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. However, in the circumstances, without costs. Date: 05.02.2010 ____________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN,J MRKR/ASP