N. Selvam and Others vs The Secretary to the Government, The Government of Tamil Nadu and Others

T.S. Sivagnanam, J.—Heard Ms.D.Nagasaila, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.R.Vijayakumar, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.

The petitioners seek for a direction upon the respondents to consider and pass orders on their representation dated 04.12.2014 seeking to constitute an expert committee with representatives from the fishing community as well to undertake a comprehensive field study about the use of modified purse seine nuts of mesh size of 100-108 mm, height of 40m and length of 500m being used for fishing from 2 km to 10 km stretch from the shore by 10 hp out board motor boats and its impact on fishing and ecology and grant exemption to these modified purse seine gear from the ban imposed vide notification in G.O. Ms.No.40, Animal Husbandry and Fisheries (FS V) Department, dated 25.03.2000 issued under Section 5 (1)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Marine Fishing Regulation Act, 1983.

The petitioners are stated to be traditional fishermen living in Neelankarai Periyakuppam and Injambakkam kuppam, Chennai, and actively involved in fishing and are dependent on fishing for their livelihood. The petitioners said to be using out board motor boats to reach the place of fishing. But the fishing itself is not done by mechanized means. The petitioners would state that the Tamil Nadu Government in G.O. Ms.No.40, Animal Husbandry and Fisheries (FS V) Department, dated 25.03.2000 issued a notification under Section 5(1)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Marine Fishing Regulation Act, 1983 prohibiting fishing by pair trawling or fishing with purse seine nets by any fishing vessel, craft, whether country craft or mechanized boat, irrespective of the size and power of engine in the entire coastal areas of Tamil Nadu in the territorial waters as a measure to conserve the fishery. In this regard, learned counsel for the petitioner made elaborate reference to the background of the context, under which, the ban was came to be imposed.

According to the petitioner, the purse seine fishing can be practiced upto a maximum of 100 days in a year, out of which, the actual fishing days are far less, depends upon the availability of fish stock, which is mainly dependent on the upwelling phenomena coinciding with monsoon period etc., and in the absence of the upwelling phenomena, they may not be able to do fishing. The petitioner would state that the purse seine fishing gear use by them is not destructive, on the other hand, it helps them to get a decent catch for their livelihood.

The petitioner would further state that the traditional gear cannot catch some of the larger fish variety, as the nets will get destroyed and thus, they fish only close to the shore. If they are permitted to use modified purse seine gear, they can catch the fully grown fishes, namely, matthi, Kaanaangalithi, Vanjaram and Soorai and they fish in areas 2 km to 10 km from the shore depending on the season and condition of the sea.

The petitioners would stated that despite the ban, fishermen across the coast of Tamil Nadu are suing various modified versions of purse seine nets, since it is a question of survival.

The learned counsel for the petitioner invited the attention of this court to the report of the Technical Committee, which was constituted by the Department of Animal Husbandry and Fisheries, Ministry of Agriculture, Government of India, New Delhi, to review the duration of the ban period and to suggest further measures to strengthen the conservation and management aspects of fishing. The second respondent was a member of the Technical Committee, which was constituted to make review for the duration of ban period. It is seen that one of the issues considered by the Committee was to suggest ban on purse seine fishing operations in the Indian coast. This aspect was dealt with by the Committee as TOR-2 and at this stage, it would be relevant to take note of the relevant portion of the findings of the Committee on this aspect as hereunder :

"91. The Committee examined the catch and utilization of purse seiners and ring seiners. While bulk of the catch of quality fish is being used for human consumption, a significant portion of the smaller varieties are utilized by fish meal plants. The small meshed seines are capable of catching the juveniles of pelagic fish. According to CMFRI (2012) in the year 2011, a heavy exploitation of young ones and juveniles of sardine was noticed of which 78.5 percent of the landings was contributed by seine net units. This is perhaps the greatest concern, which presumably might have prompted the thought of banning purse seine.

The technical specifications and mode of operation of purse seine and ring seine was examined and the Committee felt the need to treat both the gears in the same class. The Committee also felt that banning purse seine is not advisable at this time as this would be an extreme measure with undesirable consequences. The facts and arguments put forth in the following sections would vindicate the stand taken by the Committee.

The Committee noticed that each purse seiner and ring seiner employs around 25-35 crew and support comparatively a large number of dependent families per boat (the average size of a fisher family is 4.63). Along the West coast, it has been estimated that around 175 fishers depend on a single purse seiner. If this figure is multiplied with the total numbers of vessels, around 2,12,275 people are directly depending on the purse-seine fishery and around 1,72,900 people are directly depending on the ring-seine fishery.

The Committee looked into the investments in purse seiners and ring seiners and felt that the amount is quite significant (see tables 4.2., 4.3 below). The fact that any investment made in a fishing vessel cannot be put to equally viable alternate use is especially applicable to seiners. Therefore, total ban of purse seine would be equal to sinking the entire investment made by the enterprising fishermen. If the investment is financed by a Bank, it would amount to loss of public fund."

It is seen that the minutes of the meeting of the Technical Committee held on 30.05.2014 has been annexed as Appendix (g) to the report, from which, it is seen that the suggestion of the Director of Fisheries, Tamil Nadu, was also taken into consideration and the Committee has taken conscious decisions on this aspect.

In the light of the above, the petitioners now pray for a direction to the first respondent to take a decision in the matter with regard to the present ban imposed on purse seine fishing.

Considering the report submitted by the Technical Committee constituted by the Central Government, in which, the second respondent was also one of the members, the first respondent is directed to consider the report submitted by the Technical Committee constituted by the Central Government to review the duration of the ban period and to suggest further measures to strengthen the conservation and management aspects on merits and in accordance with law and take a decision, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.