IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE P.V.SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL NO : 676 of 2007 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 11/07/2007 in WP NO : 9782 OF 2005 on the file of the High Court.) Between: The Fishermen Cooperative Socity, soan village, Adilabad District, rep by its President P. Poshetty S/o Poshetty aged 48 years R/o Soan village, Adilabad Mandal, Adilabad District. ..... APPELLANT AND 1 The Fishermen Cooperative Soeicty, Nirmal, Adilabad District, repbyitsPresident, G. Gangaram 2 The Arbitrator/Assistant Directorof Fisheries, Nirmal, Adilabad District. 3 The Regional Deputy Director of Fisheries, Zone V, Warangal. 4 The Commissioner of Fisheries, Tank Bund Road, Hyderabad. 5 The Principal Secretary to Government, Animal Husbandry and Fisheries, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Appellant:MR.O.MANOHER REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR FISHERIES The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.V.SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL NO.676 OF 2007 ORAL JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Smt. Justice T.Meena Kumari) The present writ appeal is ﬁled questioning the order dated 11.07.2007 passed by the learned single Judge which was ﬁled by the ﬁrst respondent herein whereunder it challenged the order dated 30.03.2005 passed by the A.P. Co-operative Tribunal (for brevity ‘the Tribunal), Hyderabad, in C.T.A. No.50 of 1996, as illegal and arbitrary. The facts give rise to the ﬁling of the writ appeal is that the ﬁrst respondent-society was registered in May, 1961 with Nirmal and several other villages, constituting the area of operation. The appellant-society being the 5th respondent in the writ petition was also registered and it has 22 villages including Soan village, in its area of operation. Therefore, disputes arose in between these two Societies with regard to right to ﬁsh in a tank situated in Sangampet Village. However, by virtue of the memo dated 06.09.1994 issued by the Principal Secretary to Government, Animal Husbandry and Fisheries, who is the 5th respondent herein, this Court, while taking note of the arena of the dispute by its common order dated 23.11.1995 passed in Writ Petition Nos.16321 of 1994 and 2345 of 1995, directed that the same be resolved through arbitration as envisaged under Section 61 of the A.P. Co-operative Societies Act (for brevity ‘ the Act’). Accordingly, the ﬁrst respondent-Society made an application under Section 61 of the Act before the Arbitrator-cum-Assistant Director of Fisheries, the 2nd respondent herein, who by his order dated 23.04.1996 held that the 1st respondent-Society alone has the rights over the village tank of Sangampet. Aggrieved by the said order of the 2nd respondent-Arbitrator, the appellant-Society ﬁled C.T.A. No.50 of 1996 before the Tribunal and the Tribunal, after taking into consideration the documentary evidence produced before it, allowed the appeal on 08.08.1996 and the matter was remanded to the 2nd respondent-Arbitrator for fresh consideration on the premise that the Arbitrator summoned certain documents on his own accord and the procedure was not followed. Questioning the said order dated 08.08.1996 passed by the Tribunal, the ﬁrst respondent- Society ﬁled Writ Petition No.18008 of 1996 and the said writ petition was allowed by this Court on 11.12.2002 by setting aside the order of remand passed by the Tribunal and consequently the Tribunal was directed to decide the matter on merits. Thereafter, the Tribunal considered the matter afresh on merits and allowed the appeal by its Judgment dated 30.03.2005 by setting aside the order passed by the 2nd respondent-Arbitrator. According to the 1st respondent-Society, the Arbitrator, after going through the relevant records, came to the conclusion that Sangampet Village was never in the area of operation of the appellant-Society and the appellant-Society had only 22 village in the area of its operation and, therefore, the ﬁnding arrived at by the Tribunal by setting aside the order of the 2nd respondent-Arbitrator is illegal and without any basis and is, therefore, liable to be set aside. The learned single Judge, after having heard the learned counsel on either side, observed that the certiﬁcate of registration of the appellant-Society issued by the Divisional Co-operative Oﬃcer, Adilabad, which was marked as Ex.C.3, discloses that the appellant- Society had 22 villages in its area of operation and Sangampet Village is not shown in the area of its operation and that the authenticity of Ex.C.3 is not disputed. The learned single Judge further held inter alia that the Tribunal refused to take into consideration Ex.C.3–registration certiﬁcate on the sole premise that there existed some discrepancy in between Telugu bye-laws and English bye-laws, which was marked as Ex.B.2 ﬁled on behalf of the appellant-Society and that the source of Ex.B.2 was not forthcoming. The learned single Judge also summoned the records and enquired from the learned counsel on either side as to how there could be a discrepancy in between Telugu bye-laws and English bye-laws but there was no valid explanation forthcoming. The learned single Judge further observed that the Tribunal has set aside the order of the second respondent-Arbitrator only on the premise that the appellant-Society was permitted to carry ﬁshing operations in the tank of Sangampet village for the past several years and that merely because the appellant-Society has harvested ﬁsh at a time when there was dispute, it does not take away the right of the ﬁrst respondent- Society. Ultimately, the learned single allowed the writ petition and set aside the order dated 30.03.2005 passed by the Tribunal in C.T.A. No.50of 1996. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ appeal is filed. When the matter was taken up for hearing on 04.08.2008, the second respondent-Arbitrator, was directed to submit a report with reference to the rights being exercised by the society in Sangampet tank from 2005 till 30th July, 2008 by marking a copy to the Government Pleader. Accordingly, today during the course of arguments the learned Government Pleader for Fisheries has placed before this Court the status report on Sangampet Tank from June, 2005 to June, 2008 which was received from the 2nd respondent-Arbitrator pursuant to the direction given by this Court on 04.08.2008. It is contended by Sri O.Manohar Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Society that the Tribunal, after taking into consideration the material placed before it, has rightly allowed the appeal filed before it by the appellant herein holding that the appellant only has right to catch the ﬁsh on lease basis from Sangampet tank by virtue of Ex.B.10-G.O.Ms.No.484, Food and Agricultural Department, dated 02.03.1962, and hence there is no need to show Sangampet tank as area of operation in Ex.C.3-certiﬁcate issued by the Divisional Co- operative Oﬃcer, Adilabad. It is further contended that till 2005-06 the appellant-Society was having rights to catch ﬁsh from Sangampet tank from the last 30 years even though Sangampet village is not shown in the area of its operation and by virtue of the said G.O.Ms.No.484 dated 02.03.1962 the appellant-society is entitled to catch ﬁsh from Sangampet tank and that the learned single Judge erred in holding that in the area of operation of the appellant-Society, Sangampet village is not shown and that merely because for the past several years the appellant-society was carrying ﬁshing operations in the tank of Sangampet, it does not take away the right of the ﬁrst respondent- Society. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the ﬁrst respondent-Society contended that the appellant-Society has only 22 villages in the area of its operation and Sangampet tank is not shown in the area of its operations and that the 1st respondent-Society has made an application for leasehold rights of Sangampet tank for catching ﬁsh and accordingly leasehold rights were granted in its favour from 2007- 2008 and, therefore, the contention that the appellant-Society was permitted to carry ﬁshing operations in the tank of Sangampet for the past several years, does not take away the rights of the ﬁrst respondent-Society. In view of the rival contentions raised by both the learned counsel, we have perused the impugned order as well as the status report on Sangampet Tank from June-2005 to June-2008 placed before this Court by the second respondent-Arbitrator/Assistant Director of Fisheries, Nirmal, which is to the following effect: ST AT US REPORT ON SAGAMPET T ANK FROM JUNE-2005 T O JUNE-2008 Sl. No. Name of the T ank Year Remittance Particulars Amount paid by whom Fishing rights issues in favour of Fishing by whom WUA G.P. Govt. T otal 1 Sangampet T ank 2005- 06 20464/- DD No. 273956 Dt. 19.6.06 12279/- DD No. 2739555 Dt. 19.6.06 8186/- Ch.No. 4224 Dt. 19.6.06 40929/- Fisher- men Co-op. Soceity Soan Fisher- men Co-op. Society Soan Fisher- men Co-op. Society Soan 2. Sangampet T ank 2006- 07 22511/- DD No. 887854 Dt. 13.8.07 13507/- DD No. 887862 Dt. 13.8.07 9004/- Ch.No. 12812 Dt. 13.8.07 45022/- Fishermen Co-op. Soceity Nirmal --- --- 3 Sangampet T ank 2007- 08 24762/- DD No. 887855 Dt. 13.8.07 14857/- DD No. 887861 Dt. 13.8.07 9905/- Ch.No. 12611 Dt. 13.8.07 49524/- Fishermen Co-op. Soceity Nirmal Fishermen Co-op. Soceity Nirmal Fishermen Co-op. Soceity Nirmal A perusal of the said status report shows that the appellant- society was granted ﬁshing rights for the year 2005-2006 only whereas the ﬁrst respondent-Society has been granted such ﬁshing rights for the year 2007-2008 onwards in respect of Sangampet Tank. The said status report further goes to show that the appellant-Society had no right of ﬁshing operations in respect of Sangampet Tank from 2006 onwards. It is also pertinent to note that the subject matter of tank is no other than the Sangampet tank. If it is the case of the appellant- Society that Sangampet tank is in the area of its ﬁshing operations and it continued to have the leasehold rights in its favour, nothing prevented it to ﬁle an application before the authorities concerned to include and declare the said tank is also in its area of operations. We have also to observe that there is no material placed before us by the appellant-Society that it had ﬁled any such application before the authorities concerned. In the absence of any such material placed before us, we do not ﬁnd any force and basis in the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Society that the Sangampet tank also comes in its area of ﬁshing operations. Under the above circumstances, we do not ﬁnd any reason to interfere with the impugned order. For the above reasons, the writ appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed. However, we make it clear that it is open to the appellant- Society, if it is so advised, to make an application for inclusion of Sangampet tank in its area of ﬁshing operation. If any such application is made before the authorities concerned, it shall be disposed of in accordance with law expeditiously. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________________ T.MEENA KUMARI, J ________________________ P.V.SANJAY KUMAR, J 20th August, 2008. VGSR