GOPI AQUA FARMS AND ORS. ETC.versusUNION OF INDIA

A                   GOPI AQUA FARMS AND ORS. ETC.
                                         v.
                               UNION OF INDIA

                                  JULY 29, 1997

B                [SUHAS C. SEN AND S.P. KURDUKAR, JJ.]

          Constitution of India 1950: Article-32.

          Article 32-Acqua Fann~Filing Writ petition challenging the notifica-
C tion dated 19.2.91 after the decision of this cowt involving the notification
    was pronounced-Writ petitioners contending that they were not parties in the
    earlier case before this cowt-Held-The w1it petitions not maintainable-En-
    vironment (protection) Act 1986.

          Code of Civil Procedure 1908 :
D         Order I Rule 8-Held-ln a Public Interest Litigation there is no
    question of invoking the principle of order I Rule-8-Public Interest Litiga-
    tion.

          The writ petitioners who were not parties to the proceedings in the
E   case of Jagannath v. Union of India filed the present writ petitions nuder
    Article 32 stating that the decision was not binding on them. Their case was
    that the cause of action arose after and because of the Judgment in Jagan-
    nath case. The petitioners also challenged the impugned notification dt.
    19.2.91 as ultra vires Environment (protection) Act 1986 and also violative
    of the fundamental right guaranteed by the constitution. It was also urged
F   on behalf of the petitioners that Aqua Farms are not industry.

          Dismissing the writ petitions, this court

           HELD : 1.1. The present writ petitions are not maintainable. This is
    an attempt to get rid of the judgment passed by this court in the case of S.
G   Jagannath v. Union of India and others and if the prayers made in the writ
    petitions are granted the judgment will be robbed of its efficacy and the
    Aqua farms will carry on their business merrily notwithstanding the direc-
    tion to the contrary given in that Judgqient. Writ not maintainable.
                                                       [125-H; 126-A-B; 127-G]
H         Jagamzath v. Union of India and Ors., [1997] 2 sec 87, referred to.
                                         124
                 GOPIAQUAFARMSv. U.O.I.[SEN,J.]                         125
      1.2. Investigation into facts relating to shrimp culture was made and A
reports were obtained from various sources like NEERI, Central Board
for prevention and Control of Water pollution and various other
authorities. The case of Jagannath' received widest µublicity and a large
number of shrimp farmers and organizations representing them appeared
in court and placed their points of view about the dispute. Public notices B
were issued in large number of news papers all over India in English as
also in local language and also informing about the next date of hearing
as 17.10.95. Special care was taken to notify the individual aqua farms to
issue public notices in daily news papers which have circulation in the
coastal areas, and the case was heard over a span of two years. A few
persons cannot come up and say that they were not parties in that case C
and that the judgment does not bind them and that the case should be
heard all over again. [126-C-D; 127-E-F]

     Makhan Lal Waza & Ors. v. State of Jammu & Kashmir & Ors., [1971]
3 SCR 832, relied on.
                                                                               D
     2. The notification dated 19.2.91 was the basis of the judgment in
Jagannath case anci there is no explanation as to why the validity of the.
notification was not challenged at the time when Jagannath case was heard.
                                                                  [128-A-B]
       3. In a Public Interest Litigation the question of invoking the prin-   E
ciple of Order 1 & Rule 8 of the Civil procedure code will not apply.[126-E]

     CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition (C) No. 107 of
1997 Etc.

      (Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.)
                                                                               F

      T.R. Andhyarujina, Solicitor General, Altaf Ahmed, Additional
Solicitor General, K.K. Venugopal, R. Mohan, Ms. Indira Jaisingh, K.R.
Nambiar, M.C. Mehta, Ms. Seema Midha, A . Mariarputham, Ms. Aruna
Mathur, V.C. Pragasam, R.C. Verma, A.D.N. Rao, Ms. Manju Kainth, G
M.P. Vinod, Sanjay Parikh, Ms. Anitha Shenoy, Ms. Aparna and Rajgopal
for the appearing parties.

     The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

      SEN, J. These writ petitions under Article 32 must be dismissed in H
    126                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1997) SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A limine. This is nothing but an attempt to get rid of the judgment passed by
    this Court in the case of S. Jagannath v. Union of India and Others, [1997)
    2 SCC 87 by a side wind. A large number of review petitions have been
    filed against that judgment and are now pending to be heard. If the prayers
    made in the writ petitions are granted, the ju<lgment will be robbed of its
    efficacy and the Aqua farms will be able to carry on their business merrily .
B   notwithstanding the direction to the contrary given in that judgment.

          On behalf of the writ petitioners, Mr. K.K. Venugopal has argued
    that the writ petitioners were not parties to the proceedings before the
    Court in the case offagannath and the decision is not binding upon them.
C   This argument is not acceptable for several reasons. The case of!agannath
    had received widest publicity. Various investigations into facts relating to
    shrimp culture was made, reports were obtained from various sources like
    NEER!, Central Board for Prevention and Control of Water Pollution and
    various other authorities. It is difficult to believe that the petitioners were
    unaware of all these events. A large number of shrimp farmers and or-
D   ganisations representing them appeared in Court and placed their points
    of view about the dispute.                                     ·

           Secondly, in a case like this, there is no question of invoking the
     principle of Order 1, Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Jt was a public
     interest litigation. There are Aqua Culture farms all over India along the
E    coast-line. A large number of them appeared and the 'c;ase was argued at
     great length for very many days and the decision was ultimately given. Now,
     a few persons cannot come up and say that they were rt~t made parties• in
     that case or that they were unaware of that case altogf;tper and, therefore,
     the judgment does not bind them and the case should be heard all over
F   ·again. if this practice is allowed, there will be no end to litigation. This
     practice was deprecated by this Court in the case of Makhanlal Waza &
     Ors. v. State of Jammu & Kashmir & Ors., [1971) 3 SCR 832.

          Moreover, this case was heard over a span of two years. Special care
    was taken to notify the individual Aqua farms to the State Goverments and
G   the Union Territories. For this purpose, an order was issued to the follow-
    ing effect on 24th August, 1995 :

             "We are of the view that it would be in the interest of justice to
             have· full representation before us so far as individual aquafarms
             in various States/Union Territories are concerned. We, therefore,
H            adjourn the hearning to 17.10.1995. Meanwhile, we direct the
                  GOPIAQUAFARMS v. U.O.I. [SEN,J.]                          127

         coastal States/Union Territory Governments through their'~~arped A
         counsel who .are present in the Court, to issue individ~<iJ ''~()tices
         to all the aquafarms which are located in their resp~~l;iY~i ter-
         ritories. It may be stated in the notices that the same ~t~\'~,eing
         issued under the direction of this Court. It should also be, specifi-
         cally mentioned that if they want to be heard in these mll_tt¥ts by B
         this Court, they be present through their counsel/represelit~tives
         in the Court, on the next date of hearing, which is 17.10.1995. We
         also direct the Marine Products Export Development Authority
         (MPEDA), through its counsel, Mr. Harish N. Salve, to do the
         same exercise at its level also. Apart from that, we further direct
         all the State Governments/Union Territories to issue public notices C
         in this respect in daily newspapers which have circulation in the
         coastal areas, informing the aquafarms regarding the hearing of
         these matters in this Court on 17.10.1995. This may be done on
         two consecutive days.
                                                                                   D
             Notices and publication be completed within 3 weeks from
         today. Meanwhile, we direct all the State Governments/Union
         Territories not to give fresh licences/per!_llission for setting up/es-
         tablishment of any aquafarm in their respective territories till
         further orders."
                                                                                   E
       P_ursuant to this order, individual notices were given and also widest
possible publicity was given about this case. The persons affected were
directed to appear in Court to place their case. Public Notices were also
issued in large number of newspapers all over India in English and also in
local language informing the aqua farms about the pendency of the litiga- F
tion and the date of next hearing i.e. on 17.10.1995. In view of these facts
it is difficult to believe that the writ petitioners did not receive any notice
or were unaware of the pendency of the case of Jagannath remove before
this Court ·or that the aquafarms were .actually involved in that case.
Because of all these reasons we are· of the view that now that the judgment
has been pronounced, these writ petitions are not maintainable.                 G

       Mr. Venugopal sought to argue that the cause of action in his case
 arose after and because of the judgment delivered in Jagannath's case. His
·case is that the impugned notification dated 19.2.91 was ultra vires Environ-
 ment (Protection) Act, 1986 and also violates his fundamental right guaran- H
    128                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1997] SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A   teed by the Constitution.

          We are not inclined to examine the merits of these contentions
    because the impugned notification dated 19.2.91 was the basis of the
    judgment in Jagannath 's case. There is no explanation why the validity of
    this notification was not challenged at the time when Jagannath 's case was
B   heard. A point was also taken that an aqua farm is not an industry.

          The Solicitor General appearing on behalf of the Union of India
    opposed the prayer for quashing the declaration of the notification dated
    l9.2.91 as ultra vires but supported .the contention that the aqua farms were
C   not industries. The contention of the Solicitor General was that Jagannath's
    case proceeded on the basis of wrong assumption of fact.

          On behalf of the respondents, Mr. M.C. Mehta and Ms. Indira
    Jaisingh contended that neither the notification was challenged before the
    Court in Jagannath's case nor was any argument advanced that aqua farms
D   could not be treated as industries. It was not the stand of the Union of
    India and the various States who were represented in court nor any of the
    aqua farms that the aqua farms were not industries.

          In any case this point that the aqua farm is not an industry has been
    taken in the Review Petitions and will have to be considered there. We are
E   of the view that these writ petitions are misconceived. We need not express
    any opinion on the merits of the contentions made by Mr. Venugopal. We
    hold that, in the 'facts and circumstances of this case, these writ petitions
    are not maintanable and ar-e dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.

    N.A.                                                     Petitions dismissed.