Permit renewal for leased fishing vessels must follow statute, reasons, and hearing; contrary administrative policy cannot prevail.

Renewal of statutory permits for leased deep sea fishing vessels had to follow the governing Act and rules, with a reasoned decision by the competent authority and prior notice and hearing where refusal would cause civil consequences. The Court treated renewal of an existing permit as a valuable interest protected by natural justice and legitimate expectation, and held that non-consideration or unexplained refusal could not stand. It also construed the amended rules to permit leased vessels for the period specified in the permit, subject in no case to fifteen years, and held that an inconsistent administrative policy could not override the statutory regime. Automatic renewal was declined, but statutory reconsideration was directed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether refusal or non-consideration of renewal of permits for leased deep sea fishing vessels could be sustained without a reasoned order and without hearing the permit holders. (ii) Whether the statutory scheme and the amended rules permitted leased vessels to be operated for up to fifteen years, and whether a contrary administrative policy could override the statute and permit conditions.

Issue (i): Whether refusal or non-consideration of renewal of permits for leased deep sea fishing vessels could be sustained without a reasoned order and without hearing the permit holders.

Analysis: The permit renewal power was held to be governed by the statute and rules, and the renewal of an existing permit was treated as a valuable right that could be denied only on cogent and valid grounds. The absence of an express order, the failure to disclose reasons, and the refusal to accept renewal fee were found inconsistent with fair procedure. The Court also applied the principles of natural justice and legitimate expectation, holding that where the permit-holder had been led to expect renewal, any adverse decision affecting civil consequences required prior notice and an opportunity of hearing.

Conclusion: The refusal to renew could not stand unless decided by the competent authority through a lawful and reasoned process after hearing the appellants.

Issue (ii): Whether the statutory scheme and the amended rules permitted leased vessels to be operated for up to fifteen years, and whether a contrary administrative policy could override the statute and permit conditions.

Analysis: The Court read the parent Act together with the rules and the 1991 amendment to Rule 7, which drew a distinction between chartered and leased vessels. Under the amended rule, a leased vessel could be valid for a period specified in the permit and in no case beyond fifteen years. The Court held that an executive policy contrary to the statute could not prevail, and that the earlier contrary view was not binding because the amendment had not been brought to notice there. However, the Court declined to issue a direct mandamus for renewal and left the matter to the statutory authority in the first instance.

Conclusion: A leased vessel could lawfully be permitted for up to fifteen years under the amended rules, and an inconsistent policy could not override the statutory regime.

Final Conclusion: The appellants succeeded only to the extent of securing a direction for expeditious statutory reconsideration of renewal, while the Court declined to order automatic renewal itself.

Ratio Decidendi: Renewal or non-renewal of a statutory permit must conform to the governing Act and rules, be based on relevant considerations, and, where adverse civil consequences are involved, ordinarily be preceded by notice and hearing; an executive policy inconsistent with the statute cannot control the outcome.

---