9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (5) TMI 388X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Regulation of Fishing by Foreign Vessels) Rules, 1982 (hereinafter for the sake of brevity referred to as 'the said Rules'). The applications for grant of permit in respect of separate vessels have been dealt with differently, but the Permit to Fish in the Exclusive Economic Zone of India was granted in the prescribed form. The said Permit bearing No. 21002-25/92 FPI(Fy), dated 2-9-1994 as contained in Annexure-P/4 to LPA No. 610 of 2001 initially pertaining to Deep Sea Fishing Vessel, namely, 'VILLA DE MOGOR' was substituted by respondents vide Permit bearing No. 21002-26/92-FY(IND), dated 21-8-1998 as contained in Annexure - P/5 to LPA No. 610 of 2001 in favour of the appellant's Deep Sea Fishing Vessel, namely 'TEUCRO' was valid for a period of five years expired on 1-9-1999. The said Permit authorised the appellant to obtain on lease and operate the above stated Foreign Deep Sea Fishing Vessel in terms of the said Act and the said Rules, but the said Permit has allegedly not been renewed. It was further alleged that the said Permit issued under the said Act was granted in accordance with the Government of India policy relating to fishing of Deep Sea Resources in Indian Exclusi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n granted being contrary to the provisions of the said Act and the said Rules, the learned Single Judge erred in dismissing the writ petitions. 4. Before proceeding to deal with the matter, we may notice that there exists a controversy as regard genuineness or otherwise of the letter dated 12-10-1994, which is annexed as Annexure - P/8 to LPA No. 610 of 2001 and it is in the following terms :- "Dated : 12-10-94 To : M/s. A.K. International,E-26, Anand Niketan,New Delhi-110 021 Subject : Leasing of Three Stern Trawlers Sir, I am directed to refer to your letter dated 16-9-94 on the above subject and to say that the leasing permits issued under the Letter of Intent No. 21002-25/92 FPI(Fy) dated 6-9-93 are valid for a total period of fifteen years, as stated in the LOI, automatically extendable after end of every five years subject to payment of permit fees. Your's faithfully (S.K. DAS) Deputy Commissioner (FY)" However, as contended by Mr. Sanghi, we need not to go into the aforementioned question in these appeals. 5. It appears from the records that the petitioners filed applications for renewal of their permits with the requisite renewal fee, but except i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as a matter of right. Secondly, an important fact in this case is the change in Government policy. The facts noted hereinabove show that in larger public interest, the deep sea fishing policy had to be reframed. The Government had to appoint a Review Committee in this behalf and the recommendations of the Review Committee received in February, 1996 had been duly accepted by the Government. In view of the entire policy change being undertaken by the Government, the grant of permission for deep sea fishing to foreign trawlers/vessels was totally suspended. The petitioner who admittedly had arrangement with foreign vessels could not, therefore, get renewal of permit for deep sea fishing. The petitioner cannot seek permission as a matter of right. Moreover, where public interest is involved, individual interest has to give way " This Court noted that having regard to the policy decision adopted by the respondents in the year 1996 pursuant to the report of a Review Committee constituted under the Chairmanship of Mr. P. Murari, which was constituted having regard to the agitation from the traditional fishing community the Government was in the process of formulating a new deep sea fishi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Rule 7 of the said Rules provides for validity of permit. Rule 7(1) of the said Rules reads thus :- "7. Validity of permit : (1) Every permit shall, (a) be issued in original/duplicates and authenticated copies are to be distributed to enforcement and other connected authorities. (b) be valid for a period as may be specified in the permit and in no case exceed more than five years." The said Rules were amended by a notification bearing No. S.O. 36(E), dated 22-1-1991 in the following terms :- "3. In rule 7 of the said Rules, in sub-rule (1) - (1) in clause (b), for the words "be valid", the words "be valid in the case of charter" shall be substituted. (2) after clause (b), the following shall be added, namely :- "(c) in the case of lease be valid for a period as may be specified in the permit and in no case exceed more than fifteen years." 9. It is not in dispute that the petitioners had applied for and were granted Permit to Fish in the Exclusive Economic Zone of India wherefor their vessels were found fit to be operated initially for a period of 15 years. So far as the terms and conditions of the permit are concerned, there does not exist any dispute before th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ecome irrelevant where it is not connected with such public interest. Indeed, every class of consideration specified in Section 47(1) of the Act seems correlated to the interests of the public generally. It appears that Section 47(1)(a) gives the dominant purpose and Section 47(1)(b) to (f) are only its sub-categories or illustrations. If any matter taken into consideration is not shown to be correlated to the dominant purpose or, the relationship or the effect of a particular fact, which has operated in favour of a grant is such as to show that it is opposed, on the face of it, to public interest, the grant will be bad. The power to grant permits under Section 47 of the Act is limited to the purposes for which it is meant to be exercised. Considerations which are relevant for applying Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution could not be foreign to the scope of Section 47(1)(a) which is fairly wide." "27. Relevancy or otherwise of one or more grounds of grant or refusal of a permit could be a jurisdictional matter. A grant or its refusal on totally irrelevant grounds would be ultra vires or a case of excess of power. If a ground which is irrelevant is taken into account ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h in the Exclusive Economic Zone of India cannot also be accepted. Even such a mistake could have been rectified, having regard to the civil consequences suffered by the appellants herein, only upon compliance of the principles of natural justice. In Bhagwan Shukla v. Union of India & Ors., AIR 1994 SC 2480, the law has been laid down in the following terms :- "2. ... The appellant who had joined the Railways as a Trains Clerk w.e.f. 18-12-1955 was promoted as Guard, Grade - C w.e.f. 18-12-1970 by an order dated 27-10-1970. The basic pay of the appellant was fixed at Rs. 190/- p.m. w.e.f. 18-12-1970 in a running pay-scale. By an order dated 25th July, 1991, the pay-scale of the appellant, was sought to be refixed and during the refixation his basic pay was reduced to Rs. 181/- p.m. from Rs. 190/-p.m. w.e.f. 18-12-1970. The appellant questioned the order reducing his basic pay with retrospective effect from 18-12-1970 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench. The justification furnished by the respondents for reducing the basic pay was that the same had been 'wrongly' fixed initially and that the position had continued due to "administrative lapses" for about t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dment, the said decision cannot be said to be a binding precedent on the aforementioned question. In Haryana Financial Corporation & Anr. v. M/s. Jagdamba Oil Mills & Anr., JT 2002 (1) SC 482, it was held :- "19. Courts should not place reliance on decisions without discussing as to how the factual situation fits in with the fact situation of the decision on which reliance is placed. Observations of Courts are not to be read as Euclid's theorems nor as provisions of the statute. These observations must be read in the context in which they appear. Judgments of courts are not to be construed as statutes. To interpret words, phrases and provisions of a statute, it may become necessary for judges to embark into lengthy discussions but the discussion is meant to explain and not to define. Judges interpret statutes, they do not interpret judgments. They interpret words of statutes, their words are not to be interpreted as statutes. In London Graving Dock Co. Ltd. v. Horton (1951 AC 737 at P. 761), Lord Mac Dermot observed : "The matter cannot, of course, be settled merely by treating the ipsissima vertra of Willes, J. as though they were part of an Act of Parliament and applying ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the writ jurisdiction. 19. In State of UP & Anr. v. Synthetics and Chemicals Ltd. & Anr., (1991) 4 SCC 139, the law has been stated in the following terms :- "40. 'Incuria' literally means 'carelessness'. In practice per incuriam appears to mean per ignoratium. English courts have developed this principle in relaxation of the rule of stare decisis. The 'quotable in law' is avoided and ignored if it is rendered, 'in ignoratium of a statute or other binding authority', (Young v. Bristol Aeroplane Co. Ltd. [1994 1 KB 718 = (1944) 2 All ER 293]. Same has been accepted, approved and adopted by this Court while interpreting Article 141 of the Constitution which embodies the doctrine of precedents as a matter of law. In Jaisri Sahu v Rajdewan Dubey (1962) 2 SCR 558 = AIR 1962 SC 83 this Court while pointing out the procedure to be followed when conflicting decisions are placed before a Bench extracted a passage from Halsbury's Laws of England incorporating one of the exceptions when the decision of an appellate court is not binding." 20. Yet again in A-One Granites v. State of U.P. & Ors., 2001 (1) AIR SCW 848, it is stated as follows :- "10. The first question whi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cision cannot be deemed to be a law declared to have binding effect as is contemplated by Article 141 of the Constitution of India and observed thus :- "A decision which is not express and is not founded on reasons nor it proceeds on consideration of issue cannot be deemed to be a law declared to have a binding effect as is contemplated by Article 141." In the case of Arnit Das v. State of Bihar, 2000 (5) SCC 488 : (2000 AIR SCW 2037 : AIR 2000 SC 2264 : 2000 Cri LJ 2971) while examining the binding effect of such a decision, this Court observed thus (Para 20) :- "A decision not expressed, not accompanied by reasons and not proceeding on a conscious consideration of an issue cannot be deemed to be a law declared to have a binding effect as is contemplated by Article 141. That which has escaped in the judgment is not the ratio decidendi. This is the rule of sub silentio, in the technical sense when a particular point of law was not consciously determined." 12. Thus we have no difficulty in holding that as the question regarding applicability of Rule 72 of the Rules having not been even referred to, much less considered by this Court in the earlier appeals, it cannot be said ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
