The Supreme Court will pronounce its judgement today on the writ petitions filed by several aquaculture companies and take up the hearing of the review petitions soon. The extended deadline for the demolition of farms along the coastal regions expires tomorrow.
Justice Suhas Sen and Justice S P Kurdukar heard both the petitioner-companies and the environment agencies, including Magsaysay award winner M C Mehta, before reserving its judgement this evening. The review petitions will be heard by another bench.
While the companies reiterated their argument presented on Friday that they were not heard before banning aqua farms along the coast, the environmentalists accused them of manipulating judicial proceedings. Mehta argued that the writ petitions were not maintainable as the main contentions had been considered and rejected by an earlier judgement. The issues decided by the court could not be reopened. Otherwise, there would be a spate of such petitions seeking to bypass inconvenient judgements.
Contesting the claim of K K Venugopal that the companies had not been given an opportunity to present their case before imposing the ban, counsel argued that the court had issued individual notices to several firms, the state governments, and the Marine Products Exports Development Authority, apart from issuing public notices in the press for two days.
Mehta said the government never took the stand in the prolonged hearing last year that aquaculture was not an industry. However, now it is asserting this in the court. The bill in Parliament also asserts that it is not an industry.
The industries never challenged the coastal regulation zone notification issued in February 1991 till February this year, long after the judgement went against them, counsel pointed out.
Contesting Venugopals claim that the shrimp industry is bringing foreign exchange worth Rs 3,500 crore, Mehta said 80 per cent of this was from traditional culture, which had not been banned by the court. He showed UN reports to substantiate his stand. He also contended that 50 per cent of the feed for modern farming was imported a fact that was suppressed.
The threat that 3 lakh people will lose jobs is similarly exaggerated, according to Mehta. Most of the aquaculture farms are in the traditional sector which were eco-friendly.
Indira Jaising, counsel for a number of environment organisations, stated that the companies were indulging in judicial gamble after losing their case. She wanted the court to impose some judicial discipline against such petitioners.
Counsel said aquaculture was not a waterfront industry. It did not need waterfront; it required only brackish water, which could be taken to sites outside the banned 500 metres from the high water mark.
