Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 16 (KAR)

Venkateshwara Professional v. State of Karnataka

2024-01-05

M.NAGAPRASANNA

body2024
ORDER M. Nagaprasanna, J. - The petitioner is before this Court calling in question an order dated 20-09-2023 issued by the 2nd respondent/Director, Department of Fisheries, Government of Karnataka and has sought quashment of a consequential tender notification dated 06-10-2023 issued by the 3rd respondent/Deputy Director of the same Department notifying fishing rights for Hemanahalli lake in Mandya District. 2. Sans details, facts in brief, are as follows:- The petitioner claims to be a co-operative Society comprising of fishermen involved in fishing activities by undertaking various fishing assignments throughout the District of Mandya. On 13-08-2013 the 3rd respondent issues a notification calling for registration of Fishing Cooperative Societies for the purpose of assignment of fishing rights in various lakes in and around Mandya District and also brings in certain Rules and Regulations for assignment of fishing rights. It is the claim of the petitioner that on 17-10-2022 Ataguru, Kesturu and Hemanahalli lakes were assigned in favour of the petitioner and it had deposited necessary amount and continued fishing activities in those lakes. On 28-10-2022, subsequent to the permissions so accorded as observed hereinabove, the petitioner registers the Society under Section 7 of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959. At that point in time there was no other Society involved in the fishing activity in and around the aforesaid lakes. But, two months thereafter, on 27-12-2022, the 5th respondent also registers a Society for the same purpose for which the petitioner Society was registered. 3. The 2nd respondent accords permission for such a registration which results in a tender notification being issued on 01-08-2023 for fishing rights already assigned to the petitioner for various lakes including Hemanahalli lake. The 2nd respondent passes an order on 20-09-2023 notifying the assignment of fishing rights between the two Societies, the petitioner and the 5th respondent. In pursuance of the said order, a fresh tender notification is issued notifying Hemanahalli lake in Maddur Taluk, Mandya District for 5 years. It is this action that has driven the petitioner to this Court in the subject petition. 4. Heard Sri N.S. Sriraj Gowda, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Smt. Navya Shekhar, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 4 and Sri Devi Prasad Shetty, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.5. 5. It is this action that has driven the petitioner to this Court in the subject petition. 4. Heard Sri N.S. Sriraj Gowda, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Smt. Navya Shekhar, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 4 and Sri Devi Prasad Shetty, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.5. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would vehemently contend that the permission accorded to register the 5th respondent/Society is itself contrary to the policy. Therefore, any further action taken to favour the 5th respondent would also become action contrary to law. He would submit that an order dated 20-09-2023 is sought to be passed restricting the tender only to two tenderers. All these actions, he would contend, are contrary to law. He seeks quashment of aforesaid orders and a mandamus for continuance of fishing activity of the petitioner, particularly at Hemanahalli lake. 6. On the other hand, the learned Additional Government Advocate would refute the submissions to contend that there are two Societies in the area and if there is more than one Society, it is the policy that it should be allotted by way of tender. The petitioner is free to participate in the tender. No right of the petitioner is taken away by calling for tender and, therefore, seeks dismissal of the petition. 7. The learned counsel appearing for the 5th respondent would vehemently refute the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner to contend that the petitioner/Society itself is inadequately formed contrary to the permission and there is no bar for another Society to be in the same area notwithstanding the policy depicting to the contrary. The learned counsel would further contend that tender notification is issued and two of them can participate in the tender. No right of the petitioner is taken away. 7.1. Both the learned Additional Government Advocate and the learned counsel for the 5th respondent would seek dismissal of the petition. 8. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the respective learned counsel and have perused the material on record. 9. Fishing in the State of Karnataka is regulated by certain guidelines laid down in the Government order dated 13-08-2013. It was in supersession of several Government orders issued from time to time. 8. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the respective learned counsel and have perused the material on record. 9. Fishing in the State of Karnataka is regulated by certain guidelines laid down in the Government order dated 13-08-2013. It was in supersession of several Government orders issued from time to time. Presently, the fishing rights are assigned to several applicants be it individuals or co-operative societies in terms of subsisting guidelines dated 13-08-2013. The guidelines append annexures to it as Annexures-I and II. Annexure-II is what is necessary to be considered qua the submissions made by respective parties supra. Annexure-II depicts two conditions that in the area where one co-operative Society of fishermen is existing another co-operative Society should not be permitted to be established. The policy is categorical that the second Society for the same purpose should not be there. The entire issue in the lis revolves around the said condition. The said condition reads as follows: The petitioner had applied for grant of fishing rights pursuant to which a feasibility report is secured from the 3rd respondent. The 3rd respondent declares the feasibility report in favour of the petitioner by observing that the petitioner/Society is doing its activities in the jurisdiction between three lakes viz., Ataguru, Kesturu and Hemanahalli. The certificate reads as follows: Pursuant to issuance of feasibility report, the petitioner registers the Society as Society of fishermen on 28-10-2022. Therefore, it was the first Society to have registered in the said area. Fishing rights are accorded to it and the petitioner claims to have invested in fish seeds, fishing links and fish food and claims to have begun the operation. 10. Two months after registration of Society of the petitioner comes the 5th respondent/Society. It is registered on 27-12-2022. The jurisdiction of the said Society also depicts to be in the same area in which the petitioner/Society is in operation. It is not in dispute that both the Societies exist within the same jurisdiction of lakes that are the subject matter in the petition. On 01-08-2023 a separate feasibility report is sought to be secured by the 3rd respondent and the petitioner deposits the amount that was required to be deposited in terms of the aforesaid communication as it was a communication to the petitioner to make the said deposit. On 01-08-2023 a separate feasibility report is sought to be secured by the 3rd respondent and the petitioner deposits the amount that was required to be deposited in terms of the aforesaid communication as it was a communication to the petitioner to make the said deposit. The deposit is made on 18-08-2023 even though Hemanahalli lake was not awarded in favour of the petitioner. What comes about is a surprise as, a communication is made on 20-09-2023 holding that there are two Societies in the area and assignment would be awarded by way of tender. The communication dated 20-09-2023 reads as follows: This results in a tender notification dated 06-10-2023 only for Hemanahalli lake. The issue is, whether in the teeth of the aforesaid facts, a tender notification could have been issued calling for tender from eligible Societies. The very existence of the 5th respondent/Society or the permission granted for such registration runs contrary to law, as the policy supra which governs or regulates fishing activities in the State of Karnataka clearly bars a second Society to be registered in the same area for the same purpose. 11. It is not in dispute that the second Society is established for the same purpose in the same area. Since the petitioner/Society was already existing and orders in favour of the petitioner/Society was also issued on 01-08-2023 and the petitioner had deposited the amount on 18-08-2023, the same should have been taken to its logical conclusion. The Authorities have acted contrary to law in calling for a fresh tender only to give an opportunity to the 5th respondent/Society whose coming into existence itself is contrary to the policy. Therefore, any action taken to bring the 5th respondent would become contrary to law and as such the petitioner becomes entitled to the relief that he has sought for. 12. In the light of the preceding analysis, I pass the following: ORDER (i) Writ Petition is allowed. (ii) The order dated 20-09-2023 issued by the 2nd respondent and the e-tender Notification dated 06-10-2023 issued by the 3rd respondent stands quashed qua Hemanahalli lake. (iii) Mandamus issues to the 3rd respondent to forthwith assign fishing rights in favour of the petitioner, if not already assigned and continue fishing rights, if already assigned, in accordance with the policy/guidelines of the State qua Hemanahalli lake. Consequently, I.A.No.1 of 2023 stands disposed.