AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Learned counsel Sri D.L.Pandu appears for the appellant.
Learned counsel Sri K.Pavan Kumar, representing learned counsel Sri M.V.Hanumantha Rao, appears for respondents No.1 to 60.
Sri Gaddam Kiran Kumar, learned Government Pleader for Fisheries Department, appears for respondents No.61 to 63.
The appellant, who is respondent No.4 in W.P.No.11474 of 2026, is aggrieved by the judgment dated 16.04.2026 passed in the said writ petition whereby the learned writ court, without issuing any notice or opportunity of hearing to the appellant, allowed the writ petition by setting aside the proceedings dated 23.02.2024 issued by the Assistant Director of Fisheries by which the applications of respondents No.1 to 60, who were writ petitioners, for admission as members of the appellant were rejected on the ground that their castes were not included in the prescribed list of communities under the relevant Government Orders.
On the part of the appellant, apart from the ground of lack of opportunity to represent though it was directly affected, it is contended that the membership of any such body or individual is subject to statutory and regulatory requirements including under G.O.Ms.No.98 dated 22.01.1964 and G.O.Ms.No.74 dated 21.10.2011, which prescribed fishing skills, area of operation, registered byelaws and viability norms which the appellant could not place before the learned writ court. The learned writ court failed to consider the appellant’s registered byelaws, its existing membership and the applicable viability requirements, all of which have a direct bearing upon the admission of additional members into the appellant society. The learned writ court straightaway relied upon the order passed in W.P.No.34793 of 2013, dated 20.11.2015, against which a review petition is still pending as per the submission of the learned Government Pleader for the official respondents also. Therefore, the appellant has preferred this appeal.
Learned counsel for the writ petitioners submits that the impugned direction is innocuous in nature, as the official respondents have been directed to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law and in conformity with principles of natural justice by providing an opportunity of hearing to the writ petitioners. Therefore, the appellant would have the occasion to state its case in defence before the Assistant Director of Fisheries/District Fisheries Officer, Khammam, on reconsideration of the writ petitioners’ applications.
It transpires that though the writ petition was filed seeking to quash the rejection order dated 23.02.2024 on grounds of being illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of principles of natural justice, but the order impugned in the writ petition was set aside without any opportunity to the official respondents also to file their counter affidavit.
The appellant is the society in which the writ petitioners sought their admission. In such a situation, without entering into the merits on the claim of the writ petitioners at this stage, we are of the considered opinion that if the writ petitioners wanted admission in the appellant society and they consciously impleaded the appellant, the writ petition ought to have been heard and decided after notice and opportunity of hearing to the concerned respondents. In judicial proceedings, when the rights and interests of parties are affected, it would only be reiteration of the settled principles that any final opinion on the challenge should be made after opportunity to the other side to defend itself.
In those circumstances and for the reasons recorded hereinabove, the impugned judgment cannot be sustained and it is accordingly set aside. The matter is remanded to the learned writ court to decide it afresh after an opportunity of hearing to all the concerned respondents. Let it be made clear that we have not gone into the merits of the contentions of the parties and any observations made hereinabove shall not influence the decision to be taken by the learned writ court.
The writ appeal is accordingly allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.