Karnataka High Court
M/S Sri Bhagya Fish Seed Farm vs The State Of Karnataka on 31 March, 2016
Author: A.S.Bopanna
Bench: A S Bopanna
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF MARCH, 2016
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A S BOPANNA
WRIT PETITION No.16180/2015 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN:
M/S SRI BHAGYA FISH SEED FARM
REP. BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER,
MR. C. NATARAJU
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
SALUHUNASE VILLAGE,
HIRIYUR TALUK,
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT.
... PETITIONER
(BY SMT. A R SHARADAMBA, ADV. FOR
SRI. SHIVAKUMAR N, ADV.)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY ITS PRICNIPAL SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF FISHERIES,
VIKASA SOUDHA,
BANGALORE-560 001
2. THE DIRECTOR OF FISHERIES
PODIUM BLOCK,
VISHVESHWARAIAH TOWER,
DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BANGALORE-560 001
3. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF FISHERIES
CIRCLE-2, VIANIVILAS SAGAR,
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-572 144
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. R B SATHYANARAYANA SINGH, AGA. FOR R1 TO 3)
2
THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, WITH A PRAYER TO QUASH
THE GOVERNMENT ORDER DATED 13.2.2015 REGARDING THE
PAYMENT OF THE ENHANCED AMOUNT OF LEASE WHICH
WAS COMMUNICATED BY R-3 TO PETITIONER AS PER PARA 2
OF ANN-G DATED 28.2.2015 AND LETTER ISSUED BY THE R-2
DATED 31.3.2015 VIDE ANN-G1 AND ETC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMANARY
HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner is before this Court assailing the order dated 13.02.2015 directing payment of the enhanced amount of lease rentals as indicated through Annexure-G dated 28.02.2015 and the letter dated 31.03.2015 at Annexure-G1. The petitioner is seeking issue of mandamus to direct the first respondent to continue to collect the lease amount as per 2006 Fishing Policy produced at Annexure-C. The petitioner in that regard is also seeking extension of the lease period subsequent to 2014-15.
2. The petitioner is a partnership firm who had participated in the tender process held by the respondents 3 with regard to the fishing rights relating to Vanivilas Sagar Reservoir. The petitioner being successful had been granted fishing rights. The fishing rights was for the period of 5 years from 2012-13 up to 2016-17. In that regard, the order dated 31.12.2011 was issued. However, the said order came to be kept in abeyance and as such the petitioner was before this Court in W.P.No.22489/2013. This Court by the order dated 09.07.2014 had directed the consideration of the reply of the petitioner and a decision be taken. Subsequent thereto, the competent authority has passed the order dated 19.02.2014 withdrawing the order keeping the fishing rights in abeyance and the order dated 31.12.2011 was restored. It is in that view the petitioner had become entitled to carry out fishing activities as per the original order that had been granted.
3. By the order dated 13.02.2015 which is assailed in the instant petition though the period of 5 years had been 4 provided to the petitioner, the period has been indicated from 2014-15 up to 2018-19 and the amount payable as per the new fishing policy has been indicated therein. The petitioner therefore claiming to be aggrieved by the amount as indicated is before this Court in this petition.
4. The respondents have filed their objection statement seeking to sustain their action. The transaction of the lease of fishing rights being granted at the first instance and the period for which it was indicated as also the lease amount imposed under the earlier policy has been referred. It is further pointed out that revised fishing policy 2014 came into force on 21.02.2014 to be effective from the year 2014-15 and in that view the respondent seeks to sustain the order dated 13.02.2015 wherein the amount indicated therein is sought to be imposed. Hence it is contended that the order is justified.
5
5. Having taken note of the rival contentions and having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate, I have perused the petition papers.
6. At the outset, it is to be noticed that if in the absence of the earlier proceedings that had taken place in relation to the right as being claimed by the petitioners, the order dated 13.02.2015 would have been perfectly justified. However, in the instant facts what is necessary to be kept in view is that the petitioner having succeeded at the first instance in the tender process, the order dated 31.12.2011 was passed granting the fishing rights for the periods from 2012-13 to 2016-17. The amount as provided under the fishing policy existing therein was fixed as lease rentals. However, the petitioner had not been permitted to carry out the fishing activities during the period as indicated in the said order as the order dated 31.12.2011 was kept in abeyance. The petitioner having 6 approached this Court in the earlier petition, a direction had been issued to the respondents to take note of the reply submitted by the petitioner and a decision be taken in that regard. Pursuant thereto, the order dated 19.02.2014 is passed. The order expressly states that the earlier order dated 31.12.2011 had been restored.
7. If that be the position, at the first instance, the order was kept in abeyance and ultimately the order dated 19.02.2014 was passed withdrawing the order keeping the same in abeyance, the right as granted had come into effect with effect from 19.02.2014. However, since the order at the first instance had been kept in abeyance, the petitioner had lost the period to carry out the fishing activities. If such order keeping in abeyance was not made, the petitioner would have taken benefit of the right granted at the rental fixed therein. It is in that background the present order impugned needs to be noticed.
7
8. The consideration in that regard is made and since the order had been restored, in a normal circumstance, the petitioner would have been entitled to carry on the fishing activities up to the year 2016-17. The period which was lost when the order had been kept in abeyance is to be taken note and the said period is to be granted to the benefit of the petitioner so as to offset the period lost and the lease rental to be paid in that regard requires to be considered.
9. In these circumstances, since the petitioner would have the additional benefit for a period of two years and simultaneously the new fishing policy has also come into effect, up to the period 2015-16 the petitioner no doubt would be entitled to carry on fishing activities at the old rate and since the petitioner has been granted the benefit up to the year 2018-19 subject to the lease rentals being paid as indicated, the petitioner will have to pay the lease 8 rentals as indicated in the order dated 13.02.2015 for the year 2016-17 onwards.
10. Therefore, the order dated 13.02.2015 is modified to the said extent and the petitioner shall be permitted to carry on the fishing activities up to the year 2018-19 subject to lease rentals being paid as indicated in the order dated 13.02.2015 from the year 2016-17 onwards while the lease rentals shall be at the old rate up to the year 2015-16.
In terms of the above the petition stands disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE akc/bms