Something is fishy at Margao's wholesale fish market. On Wednesday, fish traders refused to pay sopo to the contractor engaged by the South Goa Planning and Development Authority to collect fees. On the contrary, they decided to pay the day's dues amounting to Rs 90,000 directly to the SGPDA. In retaliatory action, the contractor shut the gates of the market denying entry to those not paying the fees.
The functioning of the wholesale fish market has been mired in controversies of different kinds, and sopo collection has been a ticklish issue for over two decades. The increasing tension was imminent lately after SGDPA was reconstituted in 2019 with Nuvem MLA Wilfred D'Sa in the chair. The wholesalers are demanding a tender to appoint a new sopo collector, while the SGPDA is showing reluctance because the matter is in the court.
The wholesale fish traders led by M Ibrahim have no right to stop payment of sopo to the contractor who is designated and recognized by the SGPDA. At best, they have a fundamental right to seek legal recourse if the system has failed them. But they can’t infringe on a system put in place by the regulatory body, even if it is a temporary one. The wholesalers cannot bypass the contractor, period. For argument sake, even if the SGPDA is being approached with dues, the regulatory body will not be able to assess the transaction since it comes within the jurisdiction of the sopo collector.
On the flip side, the SGPDA has to show transparency and follow set rules. If the contractor's term ends in one year, it is the responsibility of the body to ensure that the process is tendered again and a new contractor appointed after complying with due formalities. A contractor cannot be allowed an informal extension, more especially when the battle lines extend far beyond the boundaries of the wholesale market.
The sopo collection involves big money. Wholesalers had presented a cheque of Rs 90,000 towards fees for a single day which was subsequently sent back, but it goes a long way to show the volume of business conducted daily. If the opposition feels that the SGPDA is losing significant revenue by not retendering the job it only raises suspicions towards the body. There may have been times when the contractor remained put for nearly a decade during the early regimes, but that cannot be a benchmark, times have changed. Errors of omission and commission of the past cannot be allowed to continue.
It is obvious that the SGPDA is taking refuge in the October 2020 directive of the Court of Civil Judge, Junior Division, Margao to maintain the status quo and not to terminate the services of the current contractor till the disposal of his application in court. Given the situation, the SGPDA needs to seek legal advice and proceed accordingly, rather than express helplessness.
Political rivalries in business that are simmering underneath could result in financial losses, and can also deny common citizens their daily fish. Systems must be put in place at the wholesale fish market and peace restored.
