M/S Sri Bhagya Fish Seed Farm vs The State Of Karnataka on 9 July, 2013

[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

M/S Sri Bhagya Fish Seed Farm vs The State Of Karnataka on 9 July, 2013

Bench: A.S. Bopanna

                            1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

       DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF JULY, 2013

                        BEFORE

      THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. BOPANNA

      WRIT PETITION NO.22489/2013 (GM-RES)

BETWEEN:

M/S SRI BHAGYA FISH SEED FARM,
REP. BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER,
MR.C.NATARAJU,
SALUHUNASE VILLAGE,
SUGURU POST, DHARMAPURA HOBLI,
HIRIYUR TALUK,
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT.                     ... PETITIONER

(BY MS. VEENA SHETTY, ADV. FOR
    M/S..SHIVA & RAWLEY)

AND

1.    THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
      REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
      DEPARTMENT OF FISHERIES,
      VIKASA SOUDHA,
      BANGALORE- 560 001.

2.    THE DIRECTOR OF FISHERIES ,
      PODIUM BLOCK,
      VISHVESHWARAIAH TOWERS,
      DR AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
      BANGALORE 560 001.

3.    THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR
      OF FISHERIES,
      CIRCLE-2, VANIVILAS SAGAR,
      CHITRADURGA DISTRICT 572 144.      ... RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI JAGADISH MUNDARGI, GA.)

     THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
ORDER DATED 28.8.2012, PASSED BY THE R1, PRODUCED AT
ANN-R AND ETC.

     THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT PASSED THE
FOLLOWING:
                              2

                        ORDER

The petitioner is before this Court assailing the order dated 28.08.2012 impugned at Annexure-R to the petition. The petitioner is also seeking for a direction to the respondents not to collect the lease amount from the petitioner.

2. The fact that the fishing right/license had been granted in favour of the petitioner for five years from the period 2012-2013 is borne out from records. By the impugned communication dated 28.08.2012, the said license has been kept in abeyance. The grievance of the petitioner is that the said action has been resorted to by the respondents without providing sufficient opportunity to the petitioner, more particularly in a circumstance where the petitioner has not violated any of the terms and conditions of the tender or subsequent thereto.

3. In that regard, it is seen that a day prior to the impugned communication, the petitioner had been issued with a show cause notice dated 28.08.2012. The reply in fact has been submitted by the petitioner on 12.09.2009 i.e. after the impugned order was passed. 3 Therefore, keeping these aspects in view, I am of the opinion that at this juncture, since license has not yet been cancelled but had only kept in abeyance, the impugned order at Annexure-R need not be quashed. However, considering the fact that a show cause notice had been issued and the petitioner had replied to the same, it would be appropriate to direct the respondent No.1 to consider the reply of the petitioner and take a decision in the matter.

4. Needless to mention that if the respondent No.1 arrives at the conclusion that the justification putforth by the petitioner is acceptable, the respondent No.1 would withdraw the order keeping the license of the petitioner in abeyance and also direct respondents No.2 and 3 suitably in that regard. To enable expeditious consideration, the petitioner shall now file a copy of the show cause notice, reply, copy of this order and the supporting documents with the respondent No.1 within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The respondent No.1 shall consider and dispose of the matter in the manner as stated above within a further period of three weeks thereafter. 4

5. In terms of the above, the petition stands disposed of.

Sd/-

JUDGE ST/BMS

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court