Sri Ningaiah S/O Ningegowda vs The State Of Karnataka on 23 July, 2012

[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Sri Ningaiah S/O Ningegowda vs The State Of Karnataka on 23 July, 2012

Bench: Ram Mohan Reddy

                           1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT BANGALORE

         DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF JULY, 2012

                        BEFORE

     THE HON' BLE MR. JUSTICE RAM MOHAN REDDY

      WRIT PETITION NO 21772 OF 2012(LB-RES)

BETWEEN

SRI NINGAIAH S/O NINGEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
RESDING AT HARALAKERE
KOPPA HOBLI,
MADDUR TALUK,
MANDYA DIST.
                                         ... PETITIONER

(By Sri. SRIDHAR C K, ADVOCATE )

AND

1.    THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
      BY ITS SECRETARY
      DEPARTMENT OF FISHERIES,
      M S BUILDING, AMBEDKAR BEEDHI,
      BANGALORE-560 001.

2.    THE FISHING CULTURE DEVELOPMENT
      ORGANIZATION
      ZILLA PANCHAYATH,
      MANDYA DISTRICT.
      REPTD. BY THE
      CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

3.    THE SECRETARY
      THAGGAHALLY GRAMA PANCHAYATH
                               2

       THAGGAHALLY,
       MADDUR TALUK,
       MANDYA DISTRICT.
                                           ... RESPONDENTS
(By Sri. N B VISWANATH, AGA)

       THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE R3
TO EXTEND PERIOD FOR ANOTHER TERM AS PER REQUEST
MADE AT ANNEX-D AND DIRECT THE R3 TO RE ACCESS THE
PREMIUM AS PER THE ANNEX-F ISSUED BY THE R2; AND
ETC.


        THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRL.HEARING THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:


                          ORDER

Petitioner when awarded a contract for fishing rights in a tank at Harlakere where he is a resident, by the Chief Executive Officer of the Zilla Panchayat, a resolution was passed by the Gram Panchayat of Haralakere, permitting the petitioner to carry out his contractual obligations which was opposed by another resident of the village, who filed W.P.No.3636/2008 and obtained an interim order of stay of the resolution and when that petition was dismissed on 3 26.11.2008, petitioner's representation when considered the Zilla Panchayat extended the period of contract by five years in confirmity with the Government notification. However petitioner when unsuccessful in obtaining the extension of the contract by yet another one year due of loss of fishing rights during the one year when W.P.No.3636/2008 was filed and dismissed, has presented this petition.

2. In the first place, if the petitioner has suffered business loss due to the writ petition filed by Smt.Pramila and its dismissal on 26.11.2008, it is open for the petitioner to institute such legal proceeding as is available in law before a competent court of law for recovery of damages.

3. In the second place, indisputably government notification for award of fishing rights is for a period of five years which the petitioner is extended the benefit pursuant to the order passed by the Chief Executive Officer of the 4 Zilla Panchayat and if that is so, petitioner's request for a writ of mandamus to direct the 3 rd respondent to extend the period by one more year is unavailable.

The petition is accordingly rejected.

Sd/-

JUDGE ln.

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court