Karnataka High Court
M/S Sri Bhagya Fish Seed Farm vs The State Of Karnataka on 19 June, 2019
Bench: Chief Justice, H.T. Narendra Prasad
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF JUNE, 2019
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR.ABHAY S. OKA, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD
WRIT APPEAL NO.1626 OF 2018 (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
... APPELLANT
(BY SHRI JAYARAM N. SIDDI, ADVOCATE FOR
SHRI L. SRINIVASA BABU, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF FISHERIES
VIKASA SOUDHA
BENGALURU - 560 001
2. THE DIRECTOR OF FISHERIES
PODIUM BLOCK
VISHVESHWARAIAH TOWERS
DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BENGALURU - 560 001
-2-
3. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF FISHERIES
CIRCLE -2, VANIVILAS SAGAR
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT - 572 144
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI Y.H. VIJAYAKUMAR, PRL. GA)
---
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF
THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO
SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 25.01.2018 PASSED BY
THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN W.P.NO.60561/2016 (GM-
RES) AND ALLOW THE SAID WRIT PETITION BY
GRANTING THE RELIEF AS SOUGHT THEREIN AND ETC.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY,
CHIEF JUSTICE DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
I.A.No.3/2018 is filed seeking recalling of the order dated 1st October 2018.
2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant on I.A.No.3/2018. For the reasons set out in the affidavit, the said application is allowed.
3. By this appeal, the appellant, who is the petitioner before the learned Single Judge has challenged the order dated 25th January 2018 passed by the learned Single Judge, by which, a writ petition filed by the appellant has been -3- dismissed. On 31st December 2011, a decision was taken by the State Government to grant lease for fishing to the appellant as per the Fishing Policy, 2006. The said decision was kept in abeyance. Only after an order was made by this Court, the first respondent allowed the appellant to carry on fishing activity in the year 2013-14. On 13th February 2015, the first respondent passed an order directing the appellant to pay the lease amount as per the new Fishing Policy, 2013. As per the said order, certain amount was paid. By the letter dated 31st March 2015, the second respondent called upon the appellant to pay the balance amount. Therefore, the present appellant filed Writ Petition No.16180/2015 praying for quashing the said order. By order dated 31st March 2016, the writ petition was allowed and a direction was issued to the respondents to issue lease for five years. On 6th September 2016, the third respondent passed an order directing the appellant to pay the lease amount as per the new Fishing Policy, 2013. W.P.No.60561/2016 was filed by the appellant by challenging the said demand. During the pendency of the writ petition, -4- order of cancellation of lease was passed which was challenged by the appellant before the learned Single Judge.
4. The learned Single Judge referred to the order dated 31st March 2015 in W.P.No.16180/2015 and observed that as per the said order, requisite amount was not paid by the appellant. The learned Single Judge observed that in the said writ petition, this Court had taken a note of the manner in which payment was required to be made. The finding of the learned Single Judge is that in the said order it was observed that if the amount as determined is paid, the lease period was to continue up to the year 2018-19. After observing that the appellant had not taken the benefit of the said order by not making payment, it was observed in the impugned order that the question of directing fresh grant of lease will not arise.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant firstly submitted that before the learned Single Judge it was pointed out that the appellant had paid a reasonable amount. He submitted that time may be granted to pay the amount as mentioned in the order of this Court passed in -5- W.P.No.16180/2015 as the livelihood of the appellant depends upon the lease for fishing.
6. We have considered the submissions. In paragraph 5 of the impugned order, the learned Single Judge has noted the specific submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant that making payment of amount by the appellant would not arise till the decision is taken by the Committee whereunder the appellant is required to be permitted to procure and leave the fishing links to the tank concerned. Thus, the argument was that it was not necessary to pay the amount. If according to the case of the appellant, an argument was canvassed before the learned Single Judge that the requisite amount was paid and the said submission is not considered, the remedy to the appellant was to move the learned Single Judge with an appropriate application.
7. The learned Single Judge has declined to entertain the petition on the ground that the appellant has failed to pay the amount as directed by this Court in the earlier writ -6- petition. Non-Payment of the amount appears to be an admitted position.
8. The appellant had invoked the equitable rights under jurisdiction of the learned Single Judge under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Considering the fact that the appellant has not paid the requisite amount, the learned Single Judge has declined to exercise the said jurisdiction. Hence, we find no error in the impugned order and accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/-
JUDGE SN