TEAM HERALD
PANJIM: The Bombay High Court at Goa in an oral order disposed off two writ petitions that it had clubbed together on beach beds and tourism related activities observing that the policies and steps taken by the government had redressed most of the issue.
“We therefore find that it would not be necessary to keep the present petition alive anymore.” However, Justices B R Gavai and F M Reis, made it clear that the disposal of the petition “would not come in way of any of the person again approaching the Court if it is found that the policy is not being properly implemented or at any subsequent point of time, if any constitutional or statutory violation are found in the policy.”
The order also made it clear that if “there are independent challenges by any independent person to the policy or infringement of any individual right, the disposal of the present petitions would not come in way of such petitions which are either pending before this Court, or such persons approaching this Court in future.“
According to the order – which pointed out that the court expects that the State Government would abide by the statement made by learned Advocate General in its true spirit in the matter of traditional fishermen and fishing activities said, that going through the government’s tourism policy it would be revealed that there is some grey area regarding right of traditional fishermen in fishing activities. According to the order Clause (G) provides that “Department may not allow any activities/permission in the area where fishing activities are carried out”.
“We find that the said clause which vests the entire discretion in the authority as to whether the other activities are to be permitted in the area where fishing activities are carried out or is not capable of giving uncontrolled discretion to the authority,” says the order. The order went on to say that it would not be appropriate to make any comment at this stage.
, “since the learned Advocate General makes a categorical statement that State Government ordinarily would not do anything that would conflict with the traditional right of fisherman to undertake fishing activities.” But the Bench added that “taking into consideration the various aspects including beach management, some shifting of fishing zones may be necessary.”
The order also put on record the Advocate General’s statement “that no amendment to the said policy concerning – 9 – CRZ Regulations including increasing the number of shacks and deck beds to operate in such shacks, would be made by State Government unless they are approved by the CRZ authority.”
