Sri Gangadevi Vividoddesha Meenugarara Sahakara Sangha Niyamitha v. The Director of Fisheries in Karnataka

((((((((((((HC-KAR, NC:(2026:KHC:42838( WP(No.(18395(of(2022( ( ,,,,,,,,,, , CNR:(KAHC010420012022( ( ( IN(THE(HIGH(COURT(OF(KARNATAKA(AT(BENGALURU( TH DATED(THIS(THE(12 (DAY(OF(AUGUST,(2026(

BEFORE(

THE(HON'BLE(MR.(JUSTICE(M.G.S.(KAMAL(

WRIT(PETITION(NO.(18395(OF(2022((GM-RES)(

BETWEEN:((

( SRI,GANGADEVI,VIVIDODDESHA,MEENUGARARA, SAHAKARA,SANGHA,NIYAMITHA,

REP,BY,ITS,SECRETARY,SHASHIDHAR,, S/O,H,V,NARAYANAPPA,, AGED,ABOUT,42,YEARS,,

R/OF,HALASHETTIHALLI,, KASABA,HOBLI,,MAGADI,TALUK,, RAMANAGARA,DISTRICT,

A,COMPANY,REGISTRAR,UNDER,, CO-OP,SOCIETY,ACT,1959, …PETITIONER,

(BY,SRI.,VENKATARAMAREDDY,V.,,ADVOCATE), , AND:(

Digitally ( signedtiby 1., THE,DIRECTOR,OF,FISHERIES,IN,KARNATAKA, SUMA0B0N RD 3 ,FLOOR,,PODIUM,BLOCK,, Location: VISHVESHWARAIAH,CENTRE,,HIGH0COURT OF AMBEDKAR,STREET,, KARNATAKA BENGALURU-560,001., ,

2., THE,JOINT,DIRECTOR,OF,FISHERIES, OFFICE,OF,THE,DIRECTORATE,OF,FISHERIES,, PODIUM,BLOCK,, VISHVESHWARAIAH,CENTRE,, AMBEDKAR,STREET,, BENGALURU-560,001., ,

3., THE,DEPUTY,DIRECTOR,OF,FISHERIES, RAMANAGARA,DISTRICT,, ((((((((((((HC-KAR, NC:(2026:KHC:42838( WP(No.(18395(of(2022( ( ,,,,,,,,,, , CNR:(KAHC010420012022( ( ( RAMANAGARA-562,159., ,

4., THE,ASST.DIRECTOR,OF,FISHERIES, MAGADI,TALUK,, RAMANAGARA,DISTRICT-562,159., ,

5., SHIVAGANGA,BESTHARA,MEENUGARARA,SAHAKARA, SANGHA,NIYAMITHA, BY,ITS,SECRETARY,, PARANGICHIKKANA,PALYA,, KASABA,HOBLI,, MAGADI-562,120, A,COMPANY,REGISTRAR,UNDER,, CO-OP,SOCIETY,ACT,1959., …RESPONDENTS, , (BY,SRI.,SRINIVAS,KUMAR,M.,,HCGP,FOR,R1,TO,R4;, ,,,,,,SRI.,GOPAL.,,ADVOCATE,FOR,R5), , , THIS, WRIT, PETITION, IS, FILED, UNDER, ARTICLES, 226, AND, 227, OF, THE, CONSTITUTION, OF, INDIA,, PRAYING, TO, QUASH,THE,ORDER,PASSED,BY,THE,R-1,i.e,THE,DIRECTOR,OF, FISHERIES, DATED, 25.08.2022, IN, NO.DOF/TECHOALLI/2010/, 2022,E-821226,AS,PER,ANNEXURE-G,AND,ETC., , , THIS, PETITION,, COMING, ON, FOR, ORDERS,, THIS, DAY,, ORDER,WAS,MADE,THEREIN,AS,UNDER:, , CORAM:, ,HON'BLE,MR.,JUSTICE,M.G.S.,KAMAL, ,

ORAL ORDER

¶1Heard Sri. Vivek Subba Reddy, learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents.

¶2The grievance of the petitioner was that his application seeking grant of fishery rights in respect of ''Kempasagara lake'' for a period of 5 years from the year 2022-23 to 2026-27 has not been considered. Instead application filed by respondent No.5 has been considered. The reasons for non-consideration of the application of the petitioner was that the petitioner had not furnished the documents as enlisted at ''Annexure-1'' to the guidelines for Inland Fisheries Policy, 2014.

¶3Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner further submits that though petitioner has submitted all the required records including the latest register of its office-bearers, the respondent-Authorities without considering the same, more particularly with regard to the working jurisdiction of the petitioner, has erroneously granted fishery rights in favour of respondent No.5. Hence, he seeks for reversal of the impugned proceedings and orders produced at Annexures-F and G.

¶4Learned AGA, justifying the order passed by the respondent No.1-Director of Fisheries, submits that the petitioner had failed to furnish the records, more particularly, with regard to its audited finance report for the relevant period. He also refers to the un-numbered paragraph 4 of the impugned proceedings at Annexure-F and submits that the petitioner had suspended its operation for a considerable period of time and during this period respondent No.5 was active within that area, which was also one of the factors considered by the respondent-Authorities. He further submits that the lease period of five years, which commenced on 01.07.2022 is to be expired on 30.06.2027 and respondent No.5 in whose favour lease was granted has complied with the terms including payment of the lease amount.

¶5He further submits that, at this juncture the request made by the petitioner cannot be considered, as the relief being sought has rendered itself ineffective. He however submits that upon expiry of the current lease period, as and when the applications are called for, the petitioner is at liberty to participate in the same and the applications so received including of the petitioner will be considered strictly in accordance with the fishery policy.

¶6Learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that since the period of lease is likely to expire on June 2027, a direction be issued to the respondent-Authorities to consider the case of the petitioner without being influenced by the impugned order as and when the applications are called for.

¶7Submissions is placed on record.

¶8Petition is disposed of.

¶9Petitioner is at liberty to participate as and when the applications are called for by the respondent-Authorities. Upon such application being filed by the petitioner and on complying with all the eligibility criteria required under the applicable Fishery Policy, the respondent-Authorities shall consider the said application. Sd/- (M.G.S. KAMAL) JUDGE

RL List No.: 1 Sl No.: 11