SRI VIJAYA PURAM | OCTOBER 28, 2026 | DWEEP TULIKA | LOCAL NEWS
Fishermen operating from a temporary fish market in Sri Vijaya Puram have alleged that a team of the Sri Vijaya Puram Municipal Council (SVPMC) arrived at the site without prior notice and attempted to initiate action against the market. The fishermen have demanded that the authorities address their long-standing dispute over market space and provide an appropriate alternative arrangement before taking further action.
The allegations were raised during a media interaction by S. U. Maheswar Rao, former Governing Body Member of the National Fisheries Development Board (NFDB), and Hem Raju, who introduced himself as secretary of the Sagar Fishery Multipurpose Society and a fishermen’s self-help group.
Fishermen Question Council’s Action
Maheswar Rao alleged that the municipal team arrived at the temporary fish market without serving a prior notice. He questioned the proposed sealing of the premises and claimed that the action was connected to the ongoing controversy surrounding the market and recent allegations involving fish contamination.
He also alleged that fishermen who had raised concerns about the market arrangements were being targeted. These allegations could not be independently verified from the statements made during the media interaction.
Maheswar Rao argued that the dispute had continued for several years and required examination of the relevant administrative records, correspondence and legal proceedings. He maintained that the fishermen should not be displaced without due consideration of their claims and the availability of alternative space.
Dispute Over Allocation of Market Space
According to the speakers, the dispute dates back to the development and opening of the modern fish market at Mohanpura in 2020. They claimed that several fishermen who had previously conducted business at the older market were not accommodated in the new facility.
The speakers stated that representations were subsequently submitted to various authorities, including the Union Government and the Andaman and Nicobar Administration, seeking alternative accommodation for those left out of the allocation process.
They further claimed that meetings were held with municipal officials and that fishermen were permitted to use the temporary market pending an alternative arrangement. The speakers referred to correspondence and meeting records that they said supported their position.
The documents cited during the interaction were not independently examined for this report. The number of fishermen eligible for accommodation, the terms of any permissions and the present legal status of the premises therefore remain subject to documentary verification.
Electricity Connection and Legal Proceedings
The speakers also described a prolonged dispute concerning electricity supply to the temporary market. They claimed that the fishermen had pursued complaints before the relevant electricity grievance forum and other authorities before obtaining an electricity connection.
An official electricity-grievance record lists an order dated April 27, 2026, associated with a complaint by Shri B. Hema Raju concerning the Mohanpura Fish Market. However, the complete order and its operative directions would need to be examined to establish its relevance to the current dispute.
Hem Raju separately claimed that court proceedings concerning the fishermen’s accommodation remained unresolved despite earlier directions. The specific orders, the parties covered by them and the extent of compliance could not be independently established from the material available for this report.
Fishermen Seek Alternative Accommodation
Hem Raju said the fishermen had repeatedly requested officials to consider their circumstances and provide suitable alternative space. He argued that the wholesale activity conducted at the temporary market differed from retail sales at the modern market and that the two activities could not simply be accommodated in the same space without considering the existing allotments.
He also alleged that a large team arrived at the premises without prior intimation and that the fishermen were not adequately informed of the legal or administrative basis for the proposed action.
The speakers warned that they would pursue further legal remedies if the dispute remained unresolved. They also appealed to the authorities to examine the correspondence and court records before taking any decision affecting the fishermen’s livelihoods.
Background and Questions Awaiting Clarification
The dispute over fish-market accommodation has a documented history. Earlier reporting in Nicobar Times described vendors being left without space following the transition to the modern Mohanpura market in 2020. Separately, a report published in The Daily Telegrams in February 2018 described the development of modern fish markets at Mohanpura and Junglighat with government support through the National Fisheries Development Board.
These reports provide historical context but do not, by themselves, establish the legality of the present occupation or the municipal action reported.
Key questions remain about the ownership and administrative control of the temporary market, the terms under which the fishermen were permitted to use it, the existence of any notice or written order, and the precise directions contained in the relevant court and electricity-grievance proceedings.
The municipal council’s account of the incident, including the grounds for the reported action and its response to the fishermen’s claims, was not available in the material examined for this report.
The immediate issue is whether the dispute can be resolved through a transparent review of the relevant records and a lawful process that takes into account the fishermen’s claims, the council’s responsibilities and the applicable legal directions.