CASE COMMENT:

SINDHUDURG JILHA SHRAMAJIVI RAPAN MACHHIMAR SANGH & OTHERS

V.

GOVERNMENT OF MAHARASTRA AND OTHERS

Submitted by:

DHINESH V

Reg No. – 17040142007

Batch 2017-22

Submitted to:

Prof. SYAM KUMAR R S

Date of Submission: 1st November 2020

Citations: M.A.NO.213 OF 2015 IN APPLICATION NO. 15 OF 2015

Title: Sindhudurg Jilha Shramajivi Rapan Machhimar Sangh & Others v. Government of   

            Maharashtra & Ors

Bench: HON’BLE MR JUSTICE U.D.SALVI, HON’BLE DR. AJAY A.DESHPANDE

Relevant Facts

This case was filed by the applicant named Sindhudurg Jilha Shramajivi Rapan Machhimar
Sangh .Thus the case deals with the perseverance marine bio diversity and the modern fishing
technologies which endangers and poses a big threat to the marine time animals and
environment. The said issues were addressed by the applicant and he represents the traditional
fishermen and claim that their method of fishing doesn’t endangers the environment where as ,
fishing with purse-seine gear/net or mini purse-seine gear/net being non-selective method, is
totally destructive/harmful to the marine bio-diversity inasmuch unwanted fish/non targeted
marine species, including Sea Turtles, Shacks, Dolphins, marine Mammals and such, other
1
endangered marine species necessary to maintain ecological balance, are caught, eventually
only to face extinction. And this new purse-seine gear also stands as cover for various illegal
activities in different ports and hence carrying capacity of Ports in the coastal zone from Mumbai
to Goa.

Issues

1. Whether the National Green Tribunal (NGT) has the jurisdiction on this case to put on
the fishing gear?
2. Whether the said claims of the purse seine fishing is really true and harming the marine
bio diversity?

1
(J) MA.213/15 in Appln No.15/2015 (WZ)
Contentions

Petitioner

The Applicants claim to be represented by the traditional fisherman, who felt aggrieved by the
threat of illegal i.e. unregulated fishing by mechanized trawlers using purse-seine gear/net within
territorial waters along the coastal line in State of Maharashtra. The Applicants pleaded that the
fishing activity done by the traditional fishermen being selective is environmentally sustainable
method and does not harm fishes, small fishes, whereas The Applicants have further pleaded that
mechanized trawlers using purse-seine gear/net not only reduce catch for the poor fishermen
using indigenous method of fishing, but also reduce their catch progressively and destroy
standing fish-stocks. The Applicants have specifically pleaded the importance of marine bio-
diversity in maintaining ecological balance and highlighted that an adverse impact of fishing by
use of purse-seine gear/net and mini purse-seine gear/net on marine bio-diversity and
consequently on its the interrelationship with the material component of environment namely;
water, air and land to raise a substantial question relating to environment, which has never been
dealt with by the concerned Authority.

Unregulated fishing by mechanical Trawlers within territorial water along the state coastline
ought to be stopped is what the traditional fishermen say.

Respondents

Abdul Hodekar, from Ratnagiri uses the nets had sought dismissal of the original complaint. His
lawyer Gayatri Ingale said NGT lacked jurisdiction and there no cause of action. Hodekar also
said that there were petitions filed and pending before the Bombay high court on the issue of
nets2.

But there is substantial question relating to marine environment and arising out of
implementation of the provisions of Environment (Protection) Act, 1986…due to inaction of the

2
Farmers Welfare Association v. Union of India.
M.C Mehta v. Kamal Nath, 1997 (1) SCC 388,
Central Government to discharge its obligations 3 and take necessary steps for restitution of
environment. The NGT said it will now hear and decide the dispute

Judgments

The National Green Tribunal (NGT) has held that it has powers to hear a petition filed by
traditional fishermen opposing the use of purse seine gear, a net considered harmful to
preservation of bio diversity. The Tribunal dismissed an application filed by a 72 year old fishing
businessman who said NGT has no jurisdiction4 and that it was only the state which could lay
down any policy against use of such nets. These are large nets that can reach upto 2000 meters in
length and 200 m in depth.

The Tribunal said “ there is substantial question relating to marine environment and arising out
of implementation of the provisions of Environment (Protection) Act, 1986…due to inaction of
the Central Government to discharge its obligations and take necessary steps for restitution of
environment.’’ The NGT said it will now hear and decide the dispute.

In a bid to safeguard fingerlings, fish species and increase their population, all purse seine nets
large fishing nets used to catch fish in bulk were banned across Maharashtra.

The NGT sought a report from the State Bio-diversity Nagpur before passing orders. The board
also said that fishing technology like purse seine fishing gear has already significant damage to
the bio diversity.

Rule of Law
Jurisdiction vested in the Tribunals would be deemed to be discharging of Supplemental Role to
that of the High Courts in exercise of the powers conferred by Article 226/227 of the
Constitution, and it affirms that such Tribunals would be deemed to be possessing competence to
constitutional validity of Provisions and Rules.5

3
M.C Mehta v. Kamal Nath, 1997 (1) SCC 388,

4
M.P. Wakf Board Vs Subhan Shah
5
(L.Chandra Kumar Vs Union of India: (1997) 3 SCC 261)
Tribunal has jurisdiction to try and decide all the civil cases wherein substantial question relating
to environment is involved, and such, question arises out of implementation of enactments
specified in Schedule-I of the NGT Act, 2010, namely;
i) The Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974;
ii) ii) The Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Cess Act, 1977;

iii) iii) The Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980;

iv) iv) The Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981;

v) v) The Environment (Protection) Act, 1986;

vi) vi) The Public Liability Insurance Act, 1991;

vii) vii) The Biological Diversity Act, 2002.

Conclusion

 As per international studies, the use of such nets can destroy fish biodiversity completely and
there is a need to implement these guidelines on a national level. The said claims about the purse
seine gear is true and it does endangers the marine bio diversity, the banning of those will largely
help the local fishermen and preserve the marine environment as well. Thus the death of the
mammals can be prevented and illegal activities happening in the ports can also be stopped.