Competence of members in a committee appointed by the government cannot be questioned: Telangana high court
The Government is the competent authority which knows the competence of the officers in the State and accordingly it has nominated the members of the committee. This was held by the Hon’ble Justice T. Amarnath Goud in the case of Fishermen Cooperative Society Vs. The State of Telangana and Ors. [W.P.No.6256 of 2021, W.P.No.20221 of 2016, W.P.No.42258 of 2016, W.P.No.7628 of 2017, W.P.No.11411 of 2017] (all the cases are similar and thus have been combined and taken up) before the Hon’ble High Court at Telangana on the 30th of July 2021.
The brief facts of the case are, the petitioners are fishermen cooperative societies and they are solely depending on fishing operations to eke out their livelihood. All the tanks of the respective societies are rain fed tanks and no perennial water supply to the tanks. Thus the tanks are rain fed and not long seasonal water spread area. All the petitioner societies are under the supervision and control of the Department of Fisheries and are governed under the provisions of the Telangana State Cooperative Societies Act, 1964. The second respondent issued a Circular Memo No.26130/1(1)/83, dated 23.12.1983 specifying the viability norms for each member. As per the said Circular, One Hectare (2.47 acres) of long seasonal water spread area is taken as a viable unit to a member of a Cooperative Society. While so, the first respondent, ignoring the prevailing facts and circumstances, has issued G.O.Ms.No.6 dated 24.3.2016 fixing the viability norms as Ac.1-00 water spread area to each member in case of perennial / canal fed water sources and Ac.2-00 water spread area to each member in case of all other water sources. The first respondent constituted a Five-Men committee to determine the viability norms for organization / bifurcation / enrollment of new members of Fishermen Cooperative Societies in the State of Telangana. The said Five-Men committee said to have examined the matter in respect of existing norms submitted a report. Aggrieved by this report, the present petition has been undertaken by the petitioners.
The counsel for the petitioners submits that, the report of the Five Men Committee is hypothetical as there is no scientific data to arrive at such a conclusion. As per the Memo dated 23.12.1983, 40% of the net profit is earmarked under various heads and hence the impugned G.O.is unsustainable. The report of the Five-Men Committee virtually affects the rights of the fishermen in catching the fish and to eke out their livelihood, which is part of welfare legislation. Furthermore, Viable unit for each member has to be considered for admission of members into the society. Apart from viability norms, for admission of new members, natural calamities such as drought, floods etc. have to be taken into account for determining the income of the society. The water spread area shown at the time of registration of the society in the byelaws is not the sole criteria even to admit members, the General Body of the Society has to pass a resolution in cooperative spirit for providing livelihood to all the members of the society taking into consideration the income derived in each year from the water sources allocated in the area of operation. The learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that the petitioners are doing fishing operations through their society and providing membership to new members or forming new societies would make the petitioner societies unviable and if the stand of the Government in reducing the area of operation in respect of each member for fishing rights from Ac.2.5 to Ac.1.00, basing on the recommendations of the Five-Men Committee, is not set aside, the petitioners would be put to irreparable loss. The counsel for the respondents submits that, that there cannot be a monopoly in trade and the impugned G.O was issued basing on the policy of the Government and the policy of the Government cannot be challenged unless any malafides are pointed out or any constitutional violation is pointed out. The Assistant Directors of Fisheries are competent persons and that they are ground level officers to form a new society, provide membership and also to check the feasibility of fishing rights.
The court heard the submissions of both the parties and observed that the impugned G.O. is nothing but a policy which is framed by the Government to accommodate more and more fishermen to eke out their livelihood keeping the economic viability in mind. The argument of the five men committee being ineligible to give recommendations was rejected since the Government is the competent authority which knows the competence of the officers in the State and accordingly it has nominated the Five-Men Committee. The said persons have done sufficient exercise and have given an exhaustive report keeping in mind the procurement of seed, investment on fish and the harvest and finally the income a fisherman would get. The court held that, “When it is a policy decision and the Government is issuing a G.O, question of violation of principles of natural justice does not arise as the rights of the petitioners are not infringed. It is only accommodating more members of similarly placed in the society by way of providing them membership as per the viability norms and the petitioners cannot find fault with in inviting their brethren into their society. In weaker sections of the society, it is expected that the existing members must know the difficulties of their brethren and they are expected to give a warm welcome to the eligible persons and get along with cordial relationship in the cooperative movement.” The writ petition was dismissed.