IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE S.N.SATYANARAYANA WRIT PETITION NO.5918/2013 (CS-RES) BETWEEN BANNURU FISHERIES CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD., BANNURU, T. NARASIPURA TALUK, MYSORE DISTRICT , REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY .
... PETITIONER (BY SRI CHRISTOPHER NOEL .A, ADVOCATE) AND 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA, SECRETARY TO ANIMAL HUSBANDRY , AND FISHERY DEPARTMENT , AMBEDKAR VEEDHI , M S BUILDING, BANGALORE - 560 001 .
2. THE DIRECTOR OF FISHERY, 3RD FLOOR, PODIUM BLOCK , VISHVESHWARAIAH KENDRA, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI , BANGALORE - 560 001.
3. DIRECTOR OF FISHERIES , KUVEMPU NAGAR, MYSORE - 570 023.
4. THE SENIOR ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF FISHERY , ZILLA PANCHAYATH , MYSORE - 570 001 .
5. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF FISHERY GRADE II , OLD SANTHEMARNAHALLI ROAD , T. NARASIPURA TOWN , MYSORE DISTRICT - 571 124 .
6. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES , MYSORE SUB -DIVISION, BEHIND MYSORE PALACE, MYSORE – 570 001.
7. THE SECRETARY , SRI CHAMUNDESHWARI FISHERIES CO-OPERATIVE (LTD) , BEEDANAHALLI, BANNUR HOBLI , T. NARASIPURA TALUK , MYSORE DISTRICT -571 101.
8. THE SECRETARY , KARNATAKA CO-OPERATIVE FISHERY’S FEDERATION (LTD), NO 37/B1, 1ST STAGE, INDUSTRIAL TOWN , VISHVESHWARANAGAR , MYSORE -570 024.
9. THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY , MYSORE DISTTRICT , MYSORE – 570 002. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI LAXMINARAYAN, AGA FOR R1 TO R6 & R9 SRI HARSHAKUMAR GOWDA, FOR SRI H.C.SHIVARAMU, ADVOCATES FOR R7 R8 SERVED) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 28.12.2012 PASSED BY 9TH RESPONDENT AT ANNEXURE-Q AND ANNEXURE-S1 NO OBJECTION CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.8 IN FAVOUR OF RESPONDENT NO.7 AND ETC., THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINEARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Petitioner herein is a co-operative society carryout the fishing activity in and around Bannuru village of T.Narasipura Taluk, Mysuru District with authorization by the competent authority to conduct fishing activity within 18 miles radius of the place of its business.
2. The grievance of petitioner is that 7th respondent – society which is carrying out similar activity has secured amendment to its bye laws by including the names of 4 villages to be included in their bye laws as the area within which it can have its fishing right. According to petitioner, said 4 villages would overlap with the villages which are already coming within the radius of 18 miles where it has got fishing rights. Therefore, it is the grievance of petitioner that before allowing such amendment by 4th respondent, opportunity should have been granted to the petitioner and it should have been heard in the matter.
3. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for petitioner relied upon two judgments of the Division Bench of this Court in the matter of Kundawada Service Cooperative Society –vs- State of Karnataka, reported in 1981(1) KLJ Short Notes 71 and in the matter of Bhatkal Urban Cooperative Bank Ltd., -vs- State of Karnataka, reported 1994(4) KLJ 303, wherein it is observed that in a situation where a society is likely to be adversely affected by reason of amendment to the bye laws of another society the principles of natural justice would require that they should be heard before passing an order permitting amendment to the bye laws. By relying upon these two judgments the learned counsel would submit that the order passed by 4th respondent, which culminated in proceedings dated 28.12.2010 at Annexure-H passed by 6th respondent, subsequently in No.DRM.B3.APL.08/2011-12, dated 28.12.2012, vide Annexure-Q, on the file of 9th respondent requires to be quashed.
4. Heard the learned counsel for petitioner as well as contesting 7th respondent and also learned Additional Government Advocate. Perused the material available on record. In this proceedings no doubt petitioner society as well as 7th respondent are conducting the business of raising fish in the water bodies situate in and around Bannur village of T.Narasipura Taluk, Mysuru District. It is stated that besides these two societies, there are 5 to 6 other societies said to be carrying out similar activities. It is seen that 7th respondent has sought for modification of its bye laws by including the names of 4 more villages where it can extend its operation of fishing activity, which is initially accepted by 4th respondent, thereafter confirmed by 6th respondent by his order dated 28.12.2010 vide Annexure-H. However, it is seen that subsequently, the order passed by 4th respondent is sought to be clarified vide order dated 20.4.2011. However, in the meanwhile the order of 6th respondent was under challenge by the petitioner herein before 9th respondent, wherein 9th respondent has accepted the same, that is amendment to the bye laws of 7th respondent, which is sought to be challenged in this writ petition.
5. The learned counsel appearing for 7th respondent would oppose this petition on the ground that petitioner does not have any bye laws of its own and it has only model bye laws, as such it has no right to oppose amendment, which is permitted by 4th respondent – Senior Assistant Director of Fisheries. Therefore, the same could not be challenged in any proceedings. According to him, 9th respondent in a proceeding initiated by petitioner herein has rightly rejected the same and confirmed the amendment allowed by 4th respondent, which is confirmed by 6th respondent. Therefore this writ petition is required to be dismissed.
6. Though this Court feel that the argument canvassed by learned counsel for 7th respondent may be considered however, the finding of two Division Bench judgments in upholding the right of petitioner society having right of hearing before modifying byelaws of any competitive society, cannot be ignored. Therefore, in the light of aforesaid two Division Bench judgments of this Court, this Court feel that the order passed by 4th respondent in permitting amendment to the bye laws of 7th respondent, the proceedings on the file of 6th respondent as well as 9th respondent, wherein the order of 4th respondent is confirmed, are required to be set aside and the matter is required to be remanded to 4th respondent to consider the request of 7th respondent for modification of its bye laws in accordance with law after giving sufficient opportunity to the petitioner and other respondents, if any, operating in the same business in the said vicinity.
7. With aforesaid observations, this writ petition is allowed. The order passed by 6th respondent vide Annexure- H dated 28.12.2010 and confirmed by 9th respondent vide Annexure-Q dated 28.12.2012 in No.DRM.B3.APL.08/2011- 2012 are set aside. The consequential No objection certificate issued by 8th respondent vide Annexure-S1 is also set aside. The matter is remanded to 4th respondent to reconsider the request of 7th respondent with reference to modification of its bye laws. It is made clear that in the remanded matter, 4th respondent shall consider the request of 7th respondent for modification of its byelaws afresh and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law after giving sufficient opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The same shall be disposed off within 90 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Sd/- JUDGE nd/-