IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF MAY 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE A.S.BOPANNA WRIT PETITION NOS.42846-847 OF 2015 (GM - TEN) BETWEEN:
Sri. Bhuvaneshwari Meenugarara Sahakara Sangha (N), By its Chief Executive Officer, Peddana Palya, Taluk: Kollegal, Dist. Chamarajanagar – 571 440.
…Petitioner (By Sri. D.S. Hosmath, Advocate) AND:
1. The Deputy Director, Department of Fisharies, Mysore – 570 001.
2. The Assistant Director (Grade-II), Department of Fisharies, Taluk : Kollegal, Dist. : Chamarajanagar – 571 440.
3. The Director, Department of Fisharies, 3rd Floor, Podium Block, Vishveshwaraya Centre, Dr. Ambedkar Road, Bengaluru – 560 001. ... Respondents (By Smt. Prathima Honnapura, AGA) These Writ Petitions are filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the order vide Annexure-F and Annexure-G both dated 18.08.2015 passed by respondent No.1.
These Writ Petitions are coming on for Preliminary Hearing ‘B’ Group this day, the Court made the following:
O R D E R The petitioner is before this Court assailing the orders dated 18.08.2015 at Annexures-F and G to the petition.
2. The petitioner Sangha has been granted the fishing right under the orders dated 10.07.2014 at Annexures-A and B in respect of Minnathahalli and Mekedatu/Hogenikal Falls for fishing activities. The lease granted was from the year 2014-2015 to 2018- 2019. At an earlier point when action was taken by the respondent to terminate the lease without following due process of law, the petitioner Sangha was before this Court in W.P. No.36210/2015. This Court by the order dated 26.08.2015, while disposing of the petition, had taken note that opportunity had not been granted to the petitioner and thus, there being violation of principles of natural justice, the action that was initiated at that point was set aside and liberty was granted to respondents to take action in accordance with law after providing opportunity to the petitioner.
3. Though that was the position, since according to the petitioner the respondent had precipitated the matter through the order dated 18.08.2015 at Annexures-F and G and also since the notification to auction the said tanks for lease of fishing right was made through the notification at Annexure-H, the petitioner has filed this petition assailing the said orders.
4. The respondents have filed their detailed objection statement with the documents appended to the same.
5. The case of the respondent is that the petitioner Sangha has not been carrying on the activities diligently and in that regard, it is also contended that the petitioner Sangha has not been carrying out the fishing activities in the said tanks. It is contended in the objection statement which is also articulated by the learned government advocate that the order and the notification as impugned in the instant writ petition are orders which had been passed prior to the order dated 26.08.2015 passed by this Court in W.P. No.36210/2015. In so far as the action initiated by the respondent subsequent to the said order in the earlier writ petition, reference is made to the report dated 20.10.2015 at Annexure-R7 to contend that the notice issued to the petitioner has not evoked any response and the petitioner had not submitted documents in support of their case. In that view, it is contended that approval had been sought for taking further action in the matter. It is therefore, contended that the petitioner, without participating in the enquiry process which had been conducted by the respondent has approached this Court by assailing the order which was in existence prior to thereof. In that view, it is contended that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
6. Having taken note of the rival contentions, in so far as the action that was initiated earlier against the petitioner by issue of a notice and the same being called in question in W.P. No.36210/2015 is a matter of record and the order dated 26.08.2015 passed in the earlier writ petition is, self explanatory. If that be the position, this Court had directed in the earlier writ petition that the respondent shall issue appropriate show-cause notice to the petitioner and thereafter, conclude the matter in accordance with law. Therefore, what would be relevant at this juncture is not the impugned orders and the notification which is assailed in this petition, since all actions are taken prior to the order dated 26.08.2015.
7. Therefore, in the circumstance wherein this Court had directed that opportunity be granted to the petitioner and action thereafter be taken, the impugned orders would loose its relevance. In that view of the matter, what would be relevant is to take note of the report dated 20.10.2015 (Annexure-R7). The said report would indicate that since the petitioner did not respond to the notice issued, further action was proposed. In any event, since petitioner is before this Court even prior to any action being taken based on such report, what is necessary to be directed at this point is to ensure that opportunity as granted through the order dated 26.08.2015 in W.P. No.36210/2015 is made available to the petitioner and the consideration be made in the manner as indicated therein.
8. Therefore, notwithstanding the observations in the report dated 20.10.2015, the petitioner is granted the liberty of filing all the documents in support of their case with respondent No.2. The respondent No.2 shall take note of the same and also keep in view the directions issued in the order dated 26.08.2015 in W.P. No.36210/2015 and thereafter, pass fresh orders in accordance with law. To enable appropriate consideration, the petitioner without issue of further notice, shall submit all documents in support of their case along with a copy of this order within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
9. The respondent No.2 shall thereupon consider the said documents and submit the report to the competent authority who shall thereupon pass necessary orders and communicate the same to the petitioner. Such action shall, in any event be concluded in an expeditious manner.
Petitions are accordingly disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE MBM