APHC010002262010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI Writ Appeal No: 945 of 2010 ALONG WITH Writ Petition No.23622 of 2008 Bench Sr.Nos:- 53 & 54 [3483] Writ Appeal No: 945 of 2010 Y. Laxminarayana, Guntur District ...Appellant Vs. The Govt. of A.P., Animal Husbandry and others ...Respondents ********** Advocate for Appellant: Ms. Kommula Hima Bindu Advocate for Petitioner in W.P.No.23622 of 2008: Mr. K. S. Murthy, Ld. Senior Counsel, appearing vice Mr. Ponnada Sree Vyas Advocate for Respondents: Mrs. S. Pranathi - Ld. Special GP appearing vice GP for Fisheries CORAM : THE CHIEF JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI DATE : 23rd September, 2025. Per DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CJ (Oral) : Since the issue involved in both the cases is similar, we propose to dispose of the same by way of this common order. Facts in W.A.No.945 of 2010 are being referred to, for the sake of convenience: 2. The present Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent has been filed against judgment and order dated 06.10.2009, passed in W.P.No.11718 of 2009. 2 HCJ & RCJ WA_945_2010 Briefly stated the material facts are as under: 3. The Commissioner of Fisheries invited tenders from eligible bidders, which was published in a newspaper dated 05.10.2001, calling for sale of 17 uneconomical and unviable Fish Seed Farms belonging to the State Government at various places in the State of Andhra Pradesh. The appellant also submitted his tender for a Fish Seed Farm at Nandi Velugu Village of Tenali Mandal, Guntur District, along with several others, out of which the appellant was found to be the successful bidder. 4. It appears that the Commissioner of Fisheries sent the issue with regard to confirming the bidding process, for approval, to the Government which took some time. In the meantime, a Writ Petition bearing No.1156 of 2002 came to be filed by one of the successful bidders questioning the inaction on the part of the Government in not confirming the sale based upon the bidding process. A Writ Petition was also filed by the appellant herein bearing W.P.No.3513 of 2002, seeking a similar direction as there was no movement forward in completing the sale and putting the bidding process to a final closure. These petitions came to be finally disposed of vide judgment and order dated 16.04.2007, with a direction to the Government to consider and pass appropriate orders with regard to the highest bids offered by the petitioners in accordance with law. 5. It appears from the record that Government Order bearing G.O.Ms.No.42, dated 11.03.2002, came to be issued by the Government 3 HCJ & RCJ WA_945_2010 based upon the report received by it from the Commissioner of Fisheries, which revealed that there had been gross variations in the upset price fixed by the Fisheries Department officials. Finding a prima facie case warranting cancellation of the tenders, the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.42, envisaging return of E.M.D. of all other cases, except the parties involved in cases covered by orders of status quo of the High Court. The Government Order No.42 thus found a prime facie case for warranting the cancellation of the tenders. 6. Government Order No.42 was subsequently followed by Government Order bearing G.O.Ms.No.106, dated 26.10.2002, which specifically envisaged the cancellation of tenders called by the Commissioner of Fisheries in respect of all the Fish Seed Farms, except those which were the subject matter of the writ petitions. Details whereof are reflected in Government Order No.106. 7. It is not totally relevant for us to refer to some of the other Government Orders which were issued in the interregnum, whereby certain committees were constituted to look into the aspect of how these Fish Seed Farms were to be dealt with. 8. Needless to say that finally Government Order bearing G.O.Ms.No.52, dated 18.06.2008, was issued by the Government cancelling the tenders in respect of those which were the subject matter of review petitions, which had been filed by the successful bidders. 4 HCJ & RCJ WA_945_2010 9. In Government Order No.52, which is impugned in the present proceedings, after examination of the issue ordered cancellation of all tenders called for by the Commissioner of Fisheries, in respect of all the Fish Seed Farms and Ice Plants and also ordered the withdrawal of Government Order No.34, dated 18.08.2004, in which the Commissioner of Fisheries was directed to dispose of the Fish Seed Farms in favour of the highest bidders on permanent basis. Notwithstanding the fact that the Government had earlier spared the cases of those tenderers in whose favour there were orders of status quo and who had filed writ petitions before this Court. Government Order No.52 thus put a complete closure of their rights, including the appellant and the petitioner herein. 10. The Government Order No.52 having been challenged before the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.11718 of 2009, did not however meet with success as the Writ Petition was dismissed by a detailed judgment and order which is impugned in the present Writ Appeal. The learned Single Judge held that the Government Order No.52 did not suffer from any illegality and was not unjust, and that the reasons reflected in the same were convincing reasons, which did not require any interference. 11. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner in W.P.No.23622 of 2008, Mr. K. S. Murthy, would submit that there was no basis for the Government to have deprived the successful bidders of their right to acquire permanent rights over the Fish Seed Farms. It is further submitted that the Government as per 5 HCJ & RCJ WA_945_2010 their earlier policy decision had decided to alienate the said Farms in favour of the successful bidders and that the decision taken subsequently to cancel was nothing but arbitrary and unsustainable. Reliance was placed upon the Apex Court judgment rendered in the case of Union of India and another vs. International Trading Company and another 1 to bring home the point that notwithstanding the fact that the Government did have the right to change its policy, yet if the said policy was not framed fairly and suffered from arbitrariness, then the same could not be permitted to be sustained. 12. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. 13. There is no doubt that the policy as framed earlier by the Government which led to inviting bids from eligible bidders including the petitioner and the appellant herein, was to create rights in favour of the successful bidders in regard to the said Fish Seed Farms, which were held to be unviable and uneconomical to the Government. The subsequent decision to cancel the bidding process first came and got reflected in Government Order No.42, which applied to all except the petitioner and the appellant before us. In the meantime, based upon the reports which were placed before the Government, it transpires that the Government was convinced that the upset price which was fixed in regard to various Fish Seed Farms was not properly fixed. Finally, the Government appears to have taken a decision to retain the Fish Seed 1 (2003) 5 SCC 437 6 HCJ & RCJ WA_945_2010 Farms and cancelled the entire bidding process by virtue of the impugned Government Order No.52. Not only this, even Government Order No.34, dated 18.08.2004, in which the Commissioner of Fisheries was directed to dispose of the Fish Seed Farms in favour of the highest bidders on permanent basis, was withdrawn. 14. On a perusal of the Government Order impugned bearing G.O.Ms.No.52, it can be also seen that it was the Commissioner of Fisheries who had addressed a letter to the Government in which it was emphasized not to auction or dispose of the Fish Seed Farms and that the same could be utilized for developing fisheries. 15. Learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the State, Mrs. S. Pranathi, would submit that all the Fish Seed Farms which were otherwise the subject matter of the bidding process are currently being used extensively for development of fish seeds, which are utilized throughout the State of Andhra Pradesh. 16. Learned Senior Counsel, Mr. K. S. Murthy, vehemently contradicts the statement made by learned Special Government Pleader for the respondents, yet in our opinion, nothing would turn on this, inasmuch as we have only to restrict our scrutiny to the judgment and order impugned, based upon the material that was placed before the Court when the matter got decided. One thing that is clear from the material on record is in fact a change in policy of the Government, which has now decided not to alienate the Fish Seed Farms 7 HCJ & RCJ WA_945_2010 in favour of any of the parties, much less the parties who appeared before us today. Whether the change in policy suffers from any arbitrariness or not, and whether the same can be questioned on the Wednesbury Principle is a matter which needs to be considered. 17. In our opinion, there was a sufficient material before the Government to initially issue the Government Order No.42 ordering the cancellation of the bidding process based upon the report of the Commissioner of Fisheries, which reported a discrepancy in the upset price of various Fish Seed Farms and subsequently by virtue of Government Order No.52, which did away with the entire concept of alienating these farms and to be used for production of fish seeds to promote fisheries in the State of Andhra Pradesh. 18. 18. In fact, in paragraph 53 of the judgment and order impugned, the learned Single Judge has referred to the counter-affidavit filed by the Commissioner of Fisheries in which the stand taken was that there were a number of schemes such as RKVY, NFBD and CSS that fish seeds are required to be kept in large quantities and that the seed production in departmental farms is a must to maintain a check on quality as well as price. 19. Not only this, the stand of the Commissioner of Fisheries is that the Government Seed Farms are required to be fully utilized and that it would not be possible to achieve the demand supply of the seeds in case the space which is otherwise required was not available. 8 HCJ & RCJ WA_945_2010 20. Testing the facts of the present case on the touchstone of the principle laid down by the Apex Court in Union of India and another vs. International Trading Company and another, we feel that the decision of the Government to cancel the bidding process and to have a policy which envisages that the fresh Fish Seed Farms be not alienated, is a policy matter and is not in any manner hit by the Wednesbury Principle or arbitrariness and therefore does not warrant any interference. 21. Be that as it may, the present writ appeal and the writ petition are found to be without any merit and are accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, in these cases, shall stand closed. DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CJ. RAVI CHEEMALAPATI, J. SSN