Judgment :- 1. Writ Petition is filed praying to issue a Writ of Declaration to declare G.O.Ms.No.5 Animal Husbandry and Fisheries Department dated 5.1.2001 issued by the first respondent is arbitrary, illegal and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India insofar as the petitioner is concerned. 2. Heard Mr.G.R.Edmund, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner; Mr.S.V.Durai Solaimalai, learned Additional Government Pleader, appearing for the respondents 1 to 3 and Mr.R.Balakrishnan, learned counsel appearing for the third respondent. 3. The G.O.Ms.No.5 Animal Husbandry and Fisheries Department dated 5.1.2001 issued by the first respondent was challenged in a batch of writ petitions and by a common order dated 11.2.2003 in W.P.Nos.6505, 6889, 7229, 7230 and 7433 of 2001, the G.O.Ms.No.5 dated 5.1.2001 was held valid. The relevant paras 10, 11, 12 and 15 of the judgment dated 11.2.2003 reads as follows:- “(10.) When the Government have taken a decision on the basis of experts opinion, this Court cannot sit on appeal on the said reasonings given by the Government to pass the impugned Government Order. As held in the decision in Union of India & others v. Lt.General Rajendra Singh Kadyam & another 2000 AIR SCW 2692, and in N.R. Nair and others v. permissible only to the extent of finding whether process in reaching decision has been observed correctly and not the decision as such. (11.) Even with respect to the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners on the basis of the discrimination discussed above, in the counter it is specifically stated that the ban is only for the mechanized fishing boats because they are operating with nets like trawl nets for fishing in the sea. But the traditional fishermen are using only non-destructive gears like Gill nets and they are also fishing only within 3 nautical miles. Because of using of the destructive nets like trawl and also of the indiscriminate operation in the sea, the same causes using Gill nets for fishing in sea, are not destructive in nature and fishing is less. It is also stated that since the traditional fishing crafts are only in area within 3 nautical miles as such they will not cause any depletion in the fishery resources in the sea. So the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that there is a discrimination between the two fishermen cannot be accepted. It is also stated that since the traditional fishing crafts are only in area within 3 nautical miles as such they will not cause any depletion in the fishery resources in the sea. So the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that there is a discrimination between the two fishermen cannot be accepted. The said discrimination is on the basis of valid reasoning and so on that ground the impugned Government Order cannot be set aside. (12.) Though the petitioners have come forward with the writ petitions stating that the impugned Government Order has to be quashed as it is violative of Art.19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India, such a stand cannot be sustained as the impugned Government Order is not imposing an absolute ban on fishing, but it is only for a particular period on the basis of valid reasonings and so the same cannot be sustained. Such qualified ban has to be taken only as reasonable restriction.” “(15.) In view of the above discussion, W.P.No.6505, 7433 and 6889 of 2001, challenging the Government Order dated 5.1.2001, cannot be sustained in law. Hence, they are dismissed accordingly. In view of the dismissal of W.P.Nos.6505, 7433 and 6889 of 2001, the Government have to implement the said Government Order, as prayed for by the petitioner in W.P.No.7229 and 7230 of 2001. So the 1st respondent is directed to implement the said order dated 5.1.2001 as prayed for.” It is stated that challenging the above order, no appeal was filed. The order dated 11.2.2003 has become final. The present writ petition is identical in all aspects and the challenge is on the very same grounds. 4. Having gone through the reasons given in the order dated 11.2.2003, I am in respectful agreement with the same in which case also the very same Government Order was under challenge. In view of the above reasoning, this writ petition is dismissed. No costs. 5. Mr.K.Selvan, Assistant Director of Fisheries, Fishing Harbour Management, Tuticorin present in Court today. He co-operated with the disposal of the case. His appearance is recorded.