Karnataka High Court
G C Chaluvegowda vs The State Of Karnataka on 25 July, 2023
Author: Krishna S.Dixit
Bench: Krishna S.Dixit
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF JULY, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT
WRIT PETITION NO. 52426 OF 2019 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. G C CHALUVEGOWDA
S/O G S CHALUVEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS,
HOSAHALLI, ANTHARASNTHE HOBALI,
HEGGADADEVANAKOTE TALUK,
MYSURU-571 116.
2. BASAVARAJ NAYAKA
S/O SIDDA NAYAKA,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
TERANIMUNTI, KANDALIKE HOBALI,
H D KOTE TALUK, MYSURU-571 116.
3. PUUTTA SWAMY NAYAKA
S/O CHIKKANAYAKA
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
MOSARAHALLI, KANDALIKE HOBALI,
H D KOTE TALUK,
MYSURU-571 116.
4. SANNASWAMINAYAKA
S/O KARIYANAYAKA
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
TERANIMUNTI VILLAGE,
KANDALIKE HOBALI,
H D KOTE TALUK, MYSURU-571 116.
5. R SOMANNA
S/O LATE REVANNA
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
RAMENA HALLI, ANTARASANTHE HOBALI,
HEGGADADEVANA KOTE, MYSURU-571 116.
2
6. THIMMAIH
S/O DEDDA HEJJORAIH
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
MACHARE GRAMA,
ANTHARASANTHE HOBALI,
HEGGADADADEVANA KOTE THALUKU,
MYSURU 571 114.
7. HEJJURAIAH
S/O LATE GIDDAIAH
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
KANANKANAHALLI,
ANTHARASANBTHE HOBALI,
HD KOTE TALUKU, MYSURU-571 116.
8. G.C. NARASIMEGOWDAQ
S/O CHALUVAGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,
HOSAHALLI, ANTHARASANTHER HOBALI,
H D KOTE TALUKU, MYSURU-571 116.
9. KEMPANANJANAIKA
S/O CHIKKA NANJANAIKA
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
MACHARE GRAMA, ANTHARASANTHE HOBALI,
HEGGADADEVANA KOTE THALLUKU,
MYSURU 571 114.
10. BASAVARAJ NAYAKA
S/O CHINNANAIKA
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
RAMENAHALLIM GRAMA,
ANTHARASANTHE HOBALI,
HEGGADADEVANAE KOTE THALUKU,
MYSURU 571 116.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. B K MANJUNATH.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF FISHERIES
AND ANIMAL HUSBANDARY,
VIKASA DOSUDHA, DR. B.R.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
3
BANGALORE-560 001.
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY
2. ADDITIONAL SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF ANIMAL
HUSBANDARY AND FISHERIES,
3RD FLOLOR, PODIUM BLOCK,
VISHWESHARAIAH TOWER,
DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU-560 001.
3. DIRECTORATE OF FISHERIES
DEPARTMENT OF ANIMAL
HUSBANDARY AND FISHERIES,
3RD FLOLOR, PODIUM BLOCK,
VISHWESHARAIAH TOWER,
DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU-560 001.
4. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF FISHERIES
MYSORE RANGE, KUVEMPUNAGARA,
MYSURU-577 023.
5. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF FISHEREIES
GR-II, KABINI, H D KOTE TALUK,
MYSURU DISTRICT-571 114.
6. GIRIJANA FISHERIES CO-OPERATIFVE SOCIETY (R)
KABINI H D KOTE TALUK, MYSURU-571 114.
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. B V KRISHNA., AGA FOR R1 TO R6;
SRI.P N MANMOHAN., ADVOCATE FOR CR/R7)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO
QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE R-2 DTD.4.5.2019
GRANTING LEASE IN FAVOUR OF R-7 VIDE ANNEXURE-H BY
ISSUING A WRIT OF CERTIORARI AND DIRECT THE R-1 TO 6
TO PERMIT THE PETITIONERS TO CARRY ON THE FISHING
ACTIVITIES IN KABINI RESERVOIR BY ISSUING LICENSES
THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
FOR ORDER, THIS DAY, THE COURT PRONOUNCED THE
FOLLOWING:
4
ORDER
Petitioners claiming to be the fishermen of the villages in question are knocking at the doors of writ court for assailing the grant of lease of fishing rights in favour of the 7th respondent-Co-operative Society vide order dated 04.05.2019 at Annexure-H. Learned counsel for the petitioners argues that this grant of fishing rights is bad since it was done at the instance of a Minister whose letter had unduly influenced the authorities; petitioners being the members of Fishermen Community depend upon fishing in the subject reservoir, for their livelihood and therefore they ought to have been allotted the fishing rights; the grant of fishing rights is contrary to the guidelines promulgated by the Government; lastly, the reservoir that was reserved for grant of fishing rights through the means of license, would not have been allotted to the 7th respondent by way of contract.
2. Learned AGA appearing for the official respondents and learned advocate appearing for the 7th respondent vehemently oppose the petition making submission in 5 justification of the impugned award of fishing contract and the reasons on which that has been made. Both they vehemently contend that the grant of fishing rights by way of auction/contract is the norm and allotment by way of license is an exception; the petition is barred by delay & laches; the claim for the allotment of fishing rights is preferential qua the Societies as against individuals; merely because the Minister had issued a letter, that cannot be said to be illegal or otherwise it has unduly influenced the decision making. Learned counsel appearing for the 7th respondent contended that after the award of contract, his client has developed the reservoir in question by investing huge sums of money; lastly, he says that even the petitioners would be permitted to fetch the fish for the benefit of his client, along with other fish-catchers. So contending they prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.
3. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the petition papers, this Court declines indulgence in the matter for the following reasons: 6
(i) Although fish is an aquatic animal, the right to fish from the water bodies is strangely enough treated, as an immovable property. Right to fish in the water bodies belonging to the Government is a Stage largess and therefore in granting such rights, the Government has promulgated certain guidelines vide Government Order dated 21.02.2014 that make the process normative.
Under clause (4) of said GO, the co-operative societies formed by the fishermen have a preferential claim for the award of fishing contracts. This clause reads as under:
"PÀArPÉ-4:-
«¯ÉêÁj «zsÁ£ÀUÀ¼ÀÄ
1) UÀÄwÛUÉ:-
C) ............................
D) ¥Àæw CºÀð «ÄãÀÄUÁgÀgÀ ¸ÀºÀPÁgÀ ¸ÀAWÀPÉÌ, C ¸ÀAWÀzÀ ¨ÉʯÁ ¥ÀæPÁgÀ, CzÀgÀ PÁAiÀið ªÁå¦ÛAiÀÄ°è UÀjµÀÖ 300 ºÉPÉàÃgï d®«¹ÛÃtðPÉÌ «ÄÃgÀzÀAvÉ UÀjµÀÖ JgÀqÀÄ PÉgÉ CxÀªÁ F DzÉñÀzÀ C£ÀħAzsÀ-2 gÀ°è ¥ÀnÖ ªÀiÁrgÀĪÀ UÀjµÀÖ MAzÀÄ d¯Á±ÀAiÀÄzÀ CxÀªÁ UÀjµÀÖ JgÀqÀÄ £À¢ ¨sÁUÀ ªÀiÁvÀæ UÀÄwÛUÉUÉ ¤ÃqÀĪÀÅzÀÄ (300 ºÉ. d®«¹ÛÃtð «ÄÃjzÀ d®¸ÀA¥À£ÀÆä®UÀ½zÀÝ ¸ÀAzÀ¨sÀðzÀ°è PÉêÀ® d®¸ÀA¥À£ÀÆä®zÀ «ÄãÀÄ ¥Á±ÀĪÁgÀÄ ºÀPÀÌ£ÀÄß ªÀiÁvÀæ UÀÄwÛUÉ ¥ÀqÉAiÀÄ®Ä ¸ÀzÀj «ÄãÀÄUÁgÀgÀ ¸ÀºÀPÁgÀ ¸ÀAWÀ CºÀðvÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ºÉÆA¢gÀÄvÀÛzÉ."7
Thus obviously, petitioners who claim to be individual fishermen cannot have the claim at all, when there is a claim by the fisheries Co-operative society.
(ii) The vehement submission of learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that the Minister had issued a letter and that had unduly influenced the decision making process is bit difficult to countenance. The text of the said letter does not prima facie show that it could unduly influence the decision making process at the hands of respondent-authorities adverse to the interest of the petitioners. This apart, the Minister has given some sensible reason as to why the case of 7th respondent needed some special consideration. He states that, the Kabini Reservoir has been intended to be developed as a Model Reservoir under the Blue Revolution Project.
(iii) The 7th respondent has already made a huge investment for developing the Reservoir and its bank area. This cannot be faltered merely because all this was initiated at the instance of the Minister. Invalidating the award of contract would cause more injustice to the 8 society than its non-invalidation would do to the petitioners.
(iv) In all fairness, learned counsel for the respondent-society agreed to induct petitioners for the catching of fishes in the same Reservoir under the contract in question on the terms that are applicable equally to other fish catchers. This arrangement would mitigate whatever hardship the petitioners would have faced for not being granted license for the fishing rights. After all, it is the task of Writ Courts to balance the competing claims and bring about a just result. In the considered opinion of this Court, the proposal of the 7th respondent if accepted by the petitioners would bring about such a result and therefore, impugned order cannot be set at naught.
(v) The vehement submission of learned counsel for the petitioners that the subject Reservoir is enlisted in the Annexure-3 to the Government Order dated 21.02.2014 as the one in respect of which award of fishing rights could be made only by way of license, is bit difficult to countenance. If one reads the heading to the Annexure-3, 9 such an impression may be hastily gathered, is true. But a deeper examination coupled with the text of Clause - 4 would show that such an assumption is not justified. One cannot construe a public document of the kind only by adverting to some headings, ignoring its substantive paragraphs. The practice of the official respondents too lends credence to this view.
(vi) Learned counsel for the 7th respondent is justified in contending that the impugned order was made on 04.05.2019 whereby the fishing contract has been awarded to his client whereas, the challenge is made by presenting the petition on 16.12.2019, there being no plausible explanation for the delay brooked. In matters like this, delay of every week also will enure to the advantage of the awardee of the contract inasmuch as, investment needs to be done following the award. Thus, on the ground of delay & laches also petitioners' case is weak.
10
In the above circumstances and with the above observations, this Writ Petition is disposed off, costs having been made easy.
Sd/-
JUDGE Snb/