High Court
Legal Reasoning
1 wp 13597-2017.odt[This order is modified pursuant to speaking to the minutes order dated 07.05.2025] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 13597 OF 2017Mastyagandha Masoli PrakalpMatsyavyasayik Sahkari SansthaMaryadit Isad, Tq. Gangakhed,Dist. ParbhaniThrough its Chief PromoterShri Satish Ramkisan Satpute,Age : 27 years, Occu. : Agri.,R/o. : Isad, Tq. Gandakhed,Dist. Parbhani... PetitionerVersus1.The State of Maharashtra,Through Secretary,Animal Husbandry, Dairy& Fishery Department,Mantralaya, Mumbai.2.Hon’ble Minister,Animal Husbandry, Dairy& Fishery Department,Mantralaya, Mumbai.3.Commissioner for Fisheries,M. S. Mumbai,Taraporwala Matsyalaya,Churni Road, Mumbai.4.Deputy Registrar,Co-operative Societies(Fishery), Taraporwala Matsyalaya,Churni Road, Mumbai.5.Assistant Commissioner (Fisheries)Parbhani, Dist. Parbhani.6.Assistant Registrar, 1 of 9
Legal Reasoning
2 wp 13597-2017.odtCo-op. Societies (Dairy),Parbhani, Dist. Parbhani.7.Jay Shivaji MatsyavyasayikSahkari Sanstha Maryadit,Kholakwadi, Tq. Gangakhed,Dist. Parbhanithrough its ChairmanShri Maroti Shripati Bhoinwad,Age : 50 years, Occu. : Agri.,R/o. : Khoklewadi. Tq. Gangakhed,Dist. Parbhani... RespondentsMr. Mahesh S. Deshmukh, Advocate for the Petitioner.Mr. S. N. Kendre, AGP for Respondent Nos. 1 to 6.Mr. V. C. Patil, Advocate h/f Mr. U. B. Bondar, Advocate for Respondent No. 7. CORAM : KISHORE C. SANT, J.Date on which reserved for order :20th February, 2025.Date on which order pronounced :23rd April, 2025. FINAL ORDER :- .The present petitioner – a fisheries society has approached thisCourt challenging the judgment and order passed by the learnedCommissioner, Fisheries, State of Maharashtra, Mumbai in Appeal No.5/2015. The learned Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies(Fisheries) has cancelled the registration of the present petitioner asfisheries society. Respondent No. 1 is the State of Maharashtra.Respondent Nos. 2 to 6 are the authorities of the State of Maharashtra,Dairy and Fisheries Department. Respondent No. 7 is the Fisheries 2 of 9 3 wp 13597-2017.odtSociety which challenged the registration of the petitioner – societywhose appeal is now allowed by way of impugned judgment and order.2.Background facts giving rise to the petition are as, theCommissioner, Co-operative Societies and Registrar, Co-operativeSocieties, Pune issued communication to the Director, Fisheries dated07.02.1989 stating the criteria for registration of the Fisheries Societyand about the control over the said societies. It is stated that, theproposed society should have at least 30 Hectares of water body havingwater for entire year. The jurisdiction of such society should be of 10Kms. There should be at least 25 members of the society. It wasdirected that, to have one society, there should be one water body persociety except the dam. Where there is a dam, there can be more thanone societies. The Deputy Commissioner thereafter again issuedcommunication dated 01.09.1989. One criteria was changed of havingwater for the entire year and was brought down to four months. 3.When these guidelines prevailing the petitioner - society appliedfor registration to the authorities for registration of fisheries society.The Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies (Dairy), Taluka Parbhaniby communication dated 17.07.2014 permitted the petitioner to open abank account as proposed society. It was directed to submit a proposalwithin two months. Permission was given to open a bank account. 3 of 9 4 wp 13597-2017.odt4.Respondent No. 7 filed appeal against the registration of thepetitioner – society raising contention there is already one societyhaving a registration. There cannot be any other society registered forone water body. Already it is allotted to the said respondent. The saidappeal was resisted by the petitioner. It is it’s case that, there can betwo or more societies registered on the water body looking to thecapacity of the water body. The water body on which registration isproposed is having area of 363 Hectares. The petitioner relied uponcircular of 1989 wherein, it is stated that, there can be two or moresocieties on a dam. The Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies,Fisheries rejected the appeal of respondent No. 7. 5.Respondent No. 7 thereafter, filed a revision before the Secretary,State of Maharashtra, Dairy and Fisheries Department. It is held that,there was stay for some time on registration of new societies. The bankpermission was granted just a day before operation of stay. Theregistration dated 09.02.2015 came to be cancelled holding that inview of circular dated 01.09.1989 there can be only one society on onewater body. For the reasons stated above the impugned order came tobe passed. The petitioner is thus before this Court.6.The learned advocate Mr. Deshmukh for the petitionervehemently argued that, the petitioner – society was rightly given 4 of 9
Decision
5 wp 13597-2017.odtregistration. Though there was stay for some time on registration ofnew societies, it was subsequently vacated. The petitioner was thusentitled to get registration. In a period, when there was no stay someother society was also granted registration. It was rightly held by therevisional authority that in view of 1989 circular, there can be morethan one societies on a dam. In the present case, water body for whichregistration is done is a dam. The authority has rightly considered boththe circulars dated 07.02.1989 and 01.09.1989. The registration wasthus in accordance with law. The said registration could not have beencancelled. The Deputy Director, Fisheries, State of Maharashtra thuscommitted an illegality by passing the impugned order. He submitsthat, in the meantime the same authority granted registration to oneJai Walmiki Matsya Vyavsaik Sahakari Sanstha, Taluka Gangakhed on02.09.2015. Thus, when subsequent society was registered, there wasno question of cancelling the registration of the petitioner – society.The affidavit filed by the respondents is against the legal position. Therespondents have taken a stand contrary to the policy. The learnedadvocate submits that, the policy of 1989 is consistent since beginningexcept for a brief period when there was stay. The learned advocate forthe petitioner thus prays for quashing and setting aside the impugnedorder by allowing the writ petition. Consequently, to restore theregistration granted in favour of the petitioner. 5 of 9 6 wp 13597-2017.odt7. The learned advocate Mr. V. C. Patil for respondent No. 7vehemently opposes the petition. He submits that, by communicationdated 16.07.2014 there was a stay granted by the Government to thepolicy giving registration to the societies. The petitioner – society wasregistered when there was stay in operation. The stay was liftedsubsequently on 30.05.2015. When the petitioner had applied forregistration there was a stay at the relevant time and therefore, thesociety could not have been registered. Mere granting permission toopen a bank account does not confer any right on the petitioner to getthe society registered. He thus prays for rejection of the writ petition.8.The learned A.G.P. supports the order passed by the authority. Hesubmits that, the order passed is consistent with the policy prevailingon the relevant date and there is no illegality in the order. 9.Considering the rival submissions, this Court has to consider thepetition in view of the policy of the Government. About the policies ofthe Government, there is no dispute. The dispute is only as regards onthe date of registration when there was stay whether registration couldhave been granted as submitted by the respondents. As against that, itis the case of the petitioner that, when stay was vacated, the petitioneris rightly given registration. There is even one other society which isregistered after vacating of the stay. Considering the area of the water 6 of 9 7 wp 13597-2017.odtbody the claim of the society was rightly considered by the registeringauthority.10.By Government Resolution of 1989, it is clearly seen that, thepolicy is framed in respect of granting of registration to the fisheriessociety. The policy also provides the number of societies that can beregistered on one water body considering the area covered under thewater body. Where the water body is more than 100 Hectares, twosocieties are permissible. When the water body is of dam, then morethan two societies are permissible. This is clearly seen from thecommunication dated 07.02.1989. Clause 6 of the said communicationclearly states that, when there is a dam there can be more than onesocieties registered. Considering that, in the present case, theregistration of the society was sought for the dam. It was permissibleto grant registration to more than one societies as the total 373 Hectareof land is covered under the water dam. Thus, as per the policy of1989, registration certainly can be granted. The communication dated04.07.2014 by the Additional Commissioner, Fisheries, Parbhanicannot be faulted with. By letter dated 17.07.2014 permission was alsogranted to open a bank account. The petitioner has thus rightlysubmitted that the petitioner was entitled to get registration. 11.Considering above, the appellate authority in judgment in Appeal 7 of 9 8 wp 13597-2017.odtno. 17/2015 had rightly considered that, as per the circular dated14.02.2005 in water body above 200 Hectares is to be considered asreservoir (tyk’k;) and had rightly rejected the appeal. The orderpassed by the appellate authority was challenged by filing writ petitionin this Court. This Court in the order held that the appellate authoritycan look into the matter and petition was disposed of. It is thereafterthe respondent No. 7 approached the revisional authority. By orderdated 20.05.2015 the appeal came to be allowed of the respondent bydirecting to de-register the society. In the affidavit in reply it is the caseof the respondents that, the judgment is consistent to the policy of theGovernment. 12.However, looking to the Government Resolution, the policy in1989, it is seen that the registration was consistent with theGovernment policy. Though for brief period there was stay, the saidcannot be taken to be reason to perpetually withheld the registration ofthe petitioner. It is already brought on record that, when stay orderwas lifted, one other society was granted registration. The said order isnever challenged and the reasons assigned by the appellate authorityare contrary to the policy of the Government. The order, therefore,deserves to be quashed and set aside.13.The writ petition is allowed in terms of prayer clause (A). 8 of 9 9 wp 13597-2017.odt14.With this, the writ petition stands disposed of. No order as tocosts. ( KISHORE C. SANT, J. ) P.S.B. 9 of 9