JUDGMENT : SOUMEN SEN, C.J . 1. The apprehension expressed by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that, by reason of allowing a free hand to foreign fishing vessels to carry out fishing activities within the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) of India, the local fishermen are suffering economically and otherwise. It is further submitted that, by granting such wide powers to foreign fishing vessels in the absence of any regulation, the Government of India is losing revenue. However, the second submission does not appear to be correct, in view of the fact that there is already a system in place which empowers the Government to monitor the fishing activities carried out by foreign fishing vessels, with proper disclosures being made in that regard. 2. The first submission requires consideration, as it appears that the Marine Fisheries Regulation and Management Bill , 2019 was introduced, wherein paragraphs 3 and 4 specifically state that no permission shall be granted to foreign fishing vessels to carry out fishing and fishing- related activities within the Exclusive Economic Zone of India. It further appears that the said provision has not been incorporated in the subsequent legislation. 3. The learned Senior Panel Counsel has referred to paragraph No.4 of the additional counter affidavit filed on 12.09.2025, from which, it is submitted that since 2012-13, no licence has been issued by the then Department of Animal Husbandry, Dairying and Fisheries, Government of India, for fishing in the Indian Exclusive Economic Zone by any foreign fishing vessel. It also refers to a Government Order No. 21002/12/2011-Fy (Ind) dated 30.01.2017, which has rescinded the guidelines governing the operation of Deep Sea Fishing Vessels in the Indian EZZ and the said Government Order has been annexed with the additional counter affidavit. Moreover, it appears that the Ministry of External Affairs, on 04.11.2025, have notified the Sustainable Harnessing of Fisheries in the Exclusive Economic Zone Rules, 2025, from which it appears that no right is given to any foreign vessel to operate in the Indian Exclusive Economic Zone. 4. The learned Senior Panel Counsel for the Union of India has submitted, on instructions, that in terms of the notification, no foreign fishing vessel or fishing-related activity is permitted to operate within the Exclusive Economic Zone of India, and that no permission has been granted to any such foreign fishing vessel. 4. The learned Senior Panel Counsel for the Union of India has submitted, on instructions, that in terms of the notification, no foreign fishing vessel or fishing-related activity is permitted to operate within the Exclusive Economic Zone of India, and that no permission has been granted to any such foreign fishing vessel. In view of the aforesaid stand taken by the Union of India, we are of the view that the grievance of the petitioner in the present petition stands redressed, though belatedly. 5. The writ petition appears to have been filed on the apprehension that foreign fishing vessels are being permitted to operate within the Indian EEZ. However, the petitioner has not disclosed any specific foreign vessels that have been allowed by the respondents to operate within the EEZ. The allegations are fake and are based solely on apprehension, unsupported by any material evidence. The petitioner shall be very careful in the future not to institute litigation based merely on apprehension, as in the present case, without proper study and collection of data in support of the contentions raised. In the event of any such recurrence, this Court may be inclined to dismiss the petition with costs. 6. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.