IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF MARCH, 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. BOPANNA WRIT PETITION No.30106/2016 (GM-RES) BETWEEN:
RAMANAGARA ZILLA GANGAMATASTHARA (BESTARA), MEENUGARARA KERE ABHIVRUDDHI NIRVAHANA SANGHA (R), RAMANAGARA TOWN, RAMANAGARA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT SRI KRISHNA, S/O LATE THAVASAIAH, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/O KERE BEEDI KURUPETE, KANAKAPURA TOWN, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI RAJAGOPAL.M.R, ADV.) AND:
1. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, DEPARTMENT ANIMAL HUSBANDARY AND FISHERIES, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE - 560 001.
2. THE DIRECTORATE OF FISHERIES IN KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR, VISWESWARAIAH TOWERS, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE - 560 001.
3. THE SENIOR ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF FISHERIES, 2ND FLOOR, ZILLA PANCHAYATH BHAVANA, B.M.ROAD, RAMANAGARA.
4. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF FISHERIES KANAKAPURA TALUK, KANAKAPURA, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI R.B.SATYANARAYANA SINGH, AGA FOR R1 TO R4) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED NOTIFICATION DTD:13.5.2016 ISSUED BY THE R-4 AS PER ANNEXURE-R INSOFAR AS IT RELATES TO SL NO.1 ARKAVATHI DAM, MULLAHALLI, KANAKAPURA TALUK IS CONCERNED.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER The petitioner is before this Court assailing the impugned notification dated 13.05.2016 at Annexure-R insofar as it relates to the ‘Arkavathi Reservoir’ indicated at Sl.No.1 in the said notification. The petitioner is seeking issue of mandamus to direct respondents No.2 and 3 to consider and make expeditious consideration of the grievance of the petitioner seeking extension of the lease based on the representation dated 24.03.2016 and the recommendation dated 16.05.2015.
2. The fact that the petitioner was granted the fishing lease as per the Fishing Policy for the periods 2011-2016 is not in dispute. Since, the period of five years has come to an end, the respondents have issued the notification dated 13.05.2016 calling for the bids for granting fishing rights for the periods 01.07.2016 to 30.06.2021. The notification being common in respect of six tanks/reservoirs, the ‘Arkavathi Reservoir’ of Mullahalli, to which the petitioner has been granted the fishing rights for the years 2011-2016 is also one of the tanks included.
3. The grievance of the petitioner is that though, the fishing right had been given to the petitioner for the period of five years, the entire period could not be enjoyed by them. In that regard, the petitioner is also referring to the earlier action that had been taken which had resulted in the writ petition No.40056/2011 before this Court which was disposed of on 04.11.2011 at Annexure-D and also the subsequent action that was taken by the respondents, due to which the fishing activity was interrupted and the petitioner could not enjoy the entire period. The petitioner has also relied upon the documents to indicate that in such circumstance, the respondents ought to have taken into consideration such aspect and the extension of the lease should have been granted as done in other cases.
4. It is the grievance of the petitioner, despite the petitioner having made such representation as at Annexure-K, the ultimate order to extend the period and defer the notification for issuing fresh fishing rights has not been considered by the respondents, though there was a recommendation dated 16.05.2015 made by the third respondent as at Annexure-Q.
5. In a matter of the present nature, when it is evident from the writ petition papers with regard to the earlier proceedings and the orders passed by this Court, the only question would be with regard to the factual determination as to whether the petitioner in fact was prevented from carrying on fishing activities for any particular period and as to whether the said period is to be now extended to the petitioner, before a fresh fishing lease is granted. Such consideration would be possible, if the respondents take into consideration the documents relied on by the petitioner as also the recommendation as referred to by the petitioner dated 16.05.2015 at Annexure-Q and a decision be taken before proceeding with the tender process through the notification dated 13.05.2016. To enable the said process to be completed, the benefit of the interim order granted to the petitioner shall continue to keep the notification dated 13.05.2016 in abeyance insofar as the ‘Arkavathi Reservoir’ of Mullahalli is concerned.
6. In that regard, the respondent shall take note of the representation, determine the factual aspect as to whether any period was lost by the petitioner and if such period is to be compensated, the respondents shall take a decision and if in that light, such period is to be provided to the petitioner, further progress pursuant to the notification dated 13.05.2016 would be made only after offsetting the period which is to be granted to the petitioner, if such decision is taken by the respondents.
7. To enable such decision to be taken, in addition to the representation dated 24.03.2016 which is already made by the petitioner, the petitioner may also submit one more representation with all supporting documents with respondent No.2, who shall take a decision in the matter as expeditiously as possible but, not later than one month from the date on which a copy of this order and the fresh representation is submitted by the petitioner to the respondent No.2 The petition is accordingly disposed of with the above directions.
Sd/- JUDGE ST