( 1 ) wp2018.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 2018 OF 2011 1. Shri Anil Chandansing Suryawanshi, Age. 24 years, Occ. Fishing, Resident of : At Banegaon, Taluka Bhokardan, Dist. Jalna. As the Chief Promoter, Jai Mahalaxmi Maccha Vyavasaik Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit, Banegaon, Tal. Bhokardan, Dist. Jalna. .. Petitioners 2. Jai Mahalaxmi Maccha Vyavasaik Sahakari Sanstha Maryaddit, Banegaon, Taluka Bhokardan, Dist. Jalna. Having Registration No. JAL/BDN/RSR/[SR]-335/2006 dated 16.10.2006. Through its Authorised Person Shri Anil Chandansing Suryawanshi, Age. 24 years, Occ. Fishing, Resident of : At Banegaon, Taluka Bhokardan, Dist. Jalna. VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra Through the Minister of State, Department of Fisheries, Mantralaya, Mumbai – 32. .. Respondents 2. The Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Jalna, Dist. Jalna. 3. The Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies [Fisheries], Maharashtra State, Mumbai. ( 2 ) wp2018.11 4. The Regional Deputy Commissioner [Fisheries], Aurangabad Region, Aurangabad. 5. Shri Sanjay Kisan More, Age. 38 years, Occ. : Resident of : C/o. Purna Maccha Vyavasaik Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit, At Kedarkheda, Taluka Bhokardan, Dist. Jalna. Mr. M.S. Deshmukh h/f. Mr. M.S. Kulkarni, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. V.G. Shelke, A.G.P. for respondent Nos. 1 to 4. Mr. M.R. Sonwane, Advocate for respondent No.5. CORAM : A.V. NIRGUDE, J. DATED : 15.09.2011 ORAL JUDGMENT :- 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally at the stage of admission with the consent of learned advocates appearing for the parties. 2. This writ petition is filed under Articles, 14,19,21,226 & 227 of the Constitution of India, against the order passed by the Hon’ble Minister for State for Fishery, on 9th March, 2011, in Revision No. 17 of 2010 and thereby cancelling the registration of the petitioner society and further cancelling the fishing rights granted to the petitioner society on a particular tank situated in Jalna district. 3. In the year 1990, respondent No.5’s society, by name, Purna Maccha Vyavasaik Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit, ( 3 ) wp2018.11 was registered for carrying on business of fishing. After registration of this society they were given fishing rights in one tank, by name, Baranjala Sabale, which is situated in the vicinity of village Kedarkheda. Thereafter, in next few years various other irrigation tanks were constructed around village Kedarkheda and since respondent No.5’s society was a registered society in that area, they could get fishing rights in respect of those tanks also. Till 2006, they were holding rights in respect of 11 tanks. Those tanks are all situated in the vicinity of village Kedarkheda. Sometime prior to 2006, the Irrigation Department initiated construction of a large tank at village Banegaon and looking to the prospects of fishing business in the proposed tank, the members of the petitioner society proposed to register their society, probably mainly for getting fishing rights of this new tank at village Banegaon. They approached the Fishery Department first and sought their ‘No objection’ for registration of society in respect of the proposed new tank. ‘No objection Certificate’ was issued. Armed with the ‘No objection Certificate’ issued by the Fishery Department, the members of the petitioner society went before the Assistant Registrar for getting their society registered. Before he could pass any order for registration of the society of the petitioner’s members, respondent No.5 and his society raised objection ( 4 ) wp2018.11 for registration of the society. After hearing both the sides, the Assistant Registrar passed order granting registration of the society. The certificate of registration was issued soon thereafter on 16th October, 2006. 4. Aggrieved by the said order passed by the Assistant Registrar, respondent No.5'society filed an appeal before the Dy. Registrar (Fishery), sometime prior to May, 2007 and after hearing respondent No.5, the Dy. Registrar dismissed the appeal on 9th May, 2007. 5. Thereafter in 2007 the petitioner society approached the Fishery Department for fishing rights in respect of the new tank. On 2nd July, 2007, fishing rights were granted to the petitioner society for a period of five years. Soon thereafter the members of the petitioner society started their fishing activity. Respondent No.5 rather belatedly on 21.08.2010 filed their revision against order passed by the Dy. Registrar dated 9th May, 2007. They made application for condonation of delay caused in filing of the revision. The petitioner society appeared before the Hon’ble Minister and after hearing both the sides the impugned order was passed. The impugned order, as said above, cancelled the registration of the society and fishing rights granted to it. 6. The Hon’ble Minister did not record reasons as ( 5 ) wp2018.11 why he would accept the case for condonation of delay. Respondent No.5 asserted before him that he and his society did not know that the Dy. Registrar had passed the impugned order on 9th May, 2007. He said that he and his society learnt about it on 27th July, 2010. He thereby suggested that though the appeal was filed by his society he did not know about its disposal. 7. The question that ought to have been put to respondent No.5 was/is why the delay in getting knowledge in respect of the impugned order occurred. Respondent No.5 who was the appellant before the Dy. Registrar allegedly remained unaware of the order dated 9th May, 2007 for next 772 days only because the appellate authority did not officially intimate the outcome of the appeal to them. The statement of respondent No.5 that they did not know that the order dismissing their appeal was passed in May, 2007 till July, 2010 in itself is not believable. I have narrated the facts above as to how respondent No.5 society since beginning opposed the entry of new society in their area of operation. It is very clear from the facts they did not want a new society to be registered particularly in respect of the new tank that was coming up in their area. They were certainly trying to monopolize this area for exploiting fish in the tank. The fishing rights are valuable rights and respondent No.5 and his society are completely aware of ( 6 ) wp2018.11 the value of such rights. They are in this business for last more than 20 years. Their members are already exploiting fish in various other tanks. The tank in question is also very close to the village where respondent No.5 is registered. The activity of fishing in the new tank has started way back in 2007. So it cannot be said that members of respondent No.5 society, especially office bearers, would not know about this activity being carried out in the tank by the petitioner society’s members. This was going on for last more than three years. Admittedly this activity was started after May, 2007. It is also very clear that respondent No.5 had filed this appeal and pursued the same by engaging an advocate. So, it cannot be said that respondent No.5 is managed by rustic villagers, who did not have procedural knowledge etc. In view of this fact which is quite apparent on record, respondent No.5 could not have succeed in convincing the Hon’ble Minister for condoning delay of 772 days. As said above, the Hon’ble Minister has unhesitatingly or should I say naively accepted the case and said that he would condone the delay for the reasons mentioned in the application without examining critically as to whether the reason mentioned in the application seeking condonation of delay is believable or not. On this count alone the order looks grossly improper and illegal. ( 7 ) wp2018.11 8. Second reason mentioned in the order for allowing the revision is that since the new tank is in the vicinity of village Banegaon, which is at a distance of 4 kms. from the registered office of respondent No.5 society, the registration of new society, namely, petitioner society would affect the petitioner No.5 society financially. For recording this finding the Hon’ble Minister again has not mentioned any reason. There is nothing on record to show that this aspect of the matter was critically examined by the Hon’ble Minister. The Hon’ble Minister probably forgot that the members of respondent No.5 society are enjoying fishing rights for more than 20 years and they have on the date of the order as many as 11 tanks. On the other hand the petitioner society had so far secured fishing rights only in respect of the new tank. The Hon’ble Minister did not make comparative study between the societies for deciding the financial implication of registration of the petitioner society. The Hon’ble Minister ignored observations of the Dy. Registrar in his judgment of 2007 while examining this aspect of the case. 9. The third reason for allowing the revision is the petitioner society obtained ‘No Objection Certificate’ from the Fishery Department in respect of this new tank before the Fishery Department could secure control of the new tank. He mentioned that this new tank ( 8 ) wp2018.11 was made ready in June, 2007 and in January, 2008, it was handed over to the Fishery Department. In view of these facts he questioned as to how the Fishery Department could have issued ‘No Objection Certificate’ in 2006, when the “water body” was not available then? He also questioned as to how the authorities allowed registration of the petitioner society when the “water body” was not available in 2006? This, indeed, was a valid objection, but the Hon’ble Minister ought to have realized that this objection had lost its efficacy due to passage of time. This objection was raised even in 2006 when the registration was sought by the petitioner society. This objection was overruled by the authorities in 2006 and even in the appeal decided by the Dy. Registrar, he rejected this objection and thereafter more than three years passed by. In the mean time in January, 2008, officially the tank was handed over to the Fishery Department and the members of the petitioner society are exploiting it for last more than three years. The passage of time has thus eroded the efficacy of this technical objection. He ought to have realized that if the registration of the petitioner society is rather belatedly cancelled, the welfare of the members of the society will be seriously jeopardized. 10. The impugned judgment dated 9th March, 2011, deserves to be set aside. Before I conclude this ( 9 ) wp2018.11 judgment, I may also express that since this new tank has come up in the area where the members of the respondent No.5 society are residing and doing their business, it cannot be ignored that they would also be interested in exploiting the new tank. They are at liberty to make appropriate application for getting fishing rights in the new tank. The petition, therefore, should succeed. The petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 9th March, 2011 is set aside. Rule made absolute accordingly. [A.V. NIRGUDE, J.] snk/2011/SEP11/wp2018.11ok