Karnataka High Court
Noukanele Nirashritara Meenugarara ... vs Director Of Fisheries on 11 April, 2022
Author: Suraj Govindaraj
Bench: Suraj Govindaraj
-1-
WP No. 100813 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF APRIL, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ
WRIT PETITION NO. 100813 OF 2022 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN:
NOUKANELE NIRASHRITARA MEENUGARARA SANGHA(R)
REHABILITATION CENTRE,MUDUGA KARWAR
U K 581324, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
KANCHIKA DIGAMBAR TANDEL,
AGE. 26 YEARS, R/O. SEA BIRD COLONY,
MUDAGA, AMADALLI,
KARWAR 581324.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. J. S. SHETTY ASSOCIATES, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. DIRECTOR OF FISHERIES
DEPARTMENT OF ANIMAL HUSBANDRY AND
FISHERIES, GOVT. OF KARNATAKA,
AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU 560001.
2. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF FISHERIES
AMADALLI, KARWAR,
DIST. UTTARA KANNADA 581324.
3. THE TASHILDAR KARWAR
DIST. UTTAR KANNADA 581324.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SHIVAPRABHU HIREMATH, AGA)
-2-
WP No. 100813 of 2022
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO QUASH THE NOTICE NO.
BANDARU/08/2016-17 DATED 16.12.2021 BY THE SECOND
RESPONDENT THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF FISHERIES,
THE COPY OF WHICH HAS BEEN PRODUCED HEREWITH AT
ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs:
a) Issue a writ of certiorari to quash the Notice No. Bandaru/08/2016-17 dated 16.12.2021 by the second respondent the assistant director of fisheries, the copy of which has been produced herewith at Annexure-A.
b) Issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents No.1 and 2 to consider the representation made by the petitioner dated 03.09.2020 made to the second respondent the copy of which has been produced herewith and marked as Annexure-B and the representation dated 31.12.2021 made by the petitioner to the first respondent, the copy of which has been produced herewith and marked as Annexure-C and further seeking a direction to the respondents for weaver of the amount paid by the petitioner society to the second respondent.
c) Any other writ or direction which this Hon'ble Court deems fit to grant in the facts and circumstances of the case, may kindly be granted in favour of the petitioners by allowing this writ petition, with cost throughout, in the ends of justice and equity.
-3-WP No. 100813 of 2022
2. The petitioner is a Society registered under the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, who had participated in a tender for collection of fees from the fishing boat personals at Amadalli fisheries Board. The petitioner being a successful bidder was selected and has been operating the same since then.
3. The grievance of the petitioner now is that, vide Annexure-A dated 16.12.2021 issued by respondent No.2 Assistant Director of Fisheries, a demand of Rs.8,18,884/- has been made and if the said demand is not met by the petitioner, it has been stated that the proceedings would be initiated for recovery of the said amount as land revenue.
4. Sri. J. S. Shetty, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that, the said order has been passed without considering the representation given by the petitioner dated 31.12.2021 in terms of Annexure-C inasmuch as the petitioner has not been able to carry out or permit the carrying out of the -4- WP No. 100813 of 2022 fishing activities during the period in which COVID lockdown has been imposed, since there was restriction of fishing activities in the lockdown period. He further submits, there could have been no amount collected during the lockdown period and therefore this aspect ought to have been taken into consideration before issuing Annexure-A. As such, he submits that the writ petition is required to be allowed.
5. Per contra, Sri. Shivaprabhu Hiremath, learned AGA submits that, even according to the petitioner, they are seeking for waiver of the amounts for a period of 28 months within the contract period of 39 months and the lockdown was for a very short period and as such, the claim of the petitioner is completely misconceived.
6. He further submits that, in terms of the agreement arrived at dated 16.02.2017, produced at Annexure- E, the petitioner has agreed to make payment of the -5- WP No. 100813 of 2022 fee amounts without claiming any deduction or waiver and as such, the petitioner is required to make payment of all the money.
7. Heard Sri. J. S. Shetty, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri. Shivaprabhu Hiremath, learned AGA for the respondents and perused the records.
8. The agreement between the petitioner and the respondents was entered into in the year 2017. Admittedly, the petitioner has not made payment of various amounts. One of the grounds urged is that, because of COVID lockdown, the petitioner was unable to collect fees, since the fishermen refused to make payment of fees for the reason that they were not permitted to carry out fishing activities.
9. There is some substance in the submission made by Sri.J. S. Shetty inasmuch as there was lockdown imposed for fishing activities. They were restricted and/or prohibited from fishing activities during lockdown, which aspect is conceded by -6- WP No. 100813 of 2022 Sri.Shivaprabhu Hiremath, learned AGA. However, the period of lockdown was for a shorter term than what has been claimed by the petitioner for waiver of 39 months. Such a claim in the light of the agreement arrived at could not be permissible. The petitioner would be liable to make payment of due charges in terms of the agreement without claiming any deduction except for the period of lockdown.
10. As above noticed, the respondent has also not charged for the period during which the lockdown was in effect prohibiting fishing activities. As such I pass the following:
ORDER i. The order dated 16.12.2021 passed by the respondent No.2 at Annexure-A is temporarily suspended.
ii. Respondent No.2 shall consider the representation submitted by the petitioner -7- WP No. 100813 of 2022 at Annexure-C insofar as the period during which the lockdown was in effect and give necessary deduction for the said period and issue a fresh order to the petitioner for making payment.
iii. In the event of the petitioner not making payment, the respondent would be at liberty to initiate such proceedings as may be permissible for recovery of the monies.
iv. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.
Sd/-
JUDGE gab