AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
A.S. Bopanna, J.—The petitioner in W.P. No. 31021/2013 is assailing the endorsement dated 02.07.2013 (Annexure ''D'') and the endorsement dated 04.07.2013 (Annexure ''O'') to the petition. The petitioner is also seeking for issue of mandamus to the respondents to take action for providing necessary infrastructure and protection for effectively carrying out the fishery activities by the petitioner-Society at K.R.S. reservoir. In W.P. Nos. 36144 to 36145 of 2013, the petitioners are assailing the order dated 12.01.2012, impugned at Annexure ''G'' to the petition. They are also seeking for issue of mandamus directing the respondents Nos. 1 to 4 to issue individual license to the members of the petitioner - Society to enable them to carry on fishing activities in K.R.S. reservoir.
The petitioners in W.P. Nos. 36215 to 36218 of 2013 are also assailing the order dated 20.04.2009 and 12.01.2012 seeking for issue of mandamus directing the respondents to issue license to the petitioners and other local fishermen residing on the banks of K.R.S. reservoir.
Since in all these petitions, the issue relates to the fishing activities to be carried on in KRS reservoir, these petitions are taken up together, heard and disposed of by this common order.
For the sake of convenience, wherever it becomes necessary, the parties would be referred to by their names, so as to avoid confusion as they are arrayed differently in these petitions.
Heard learned senior Counsel for the petitioner in W.P. No. 31021/2013 and other learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners as well as the respondents/impleading applicants and the learned Government Advocate and perused the petition papers.
A perusal of the papers in the light of the contentions put forth would indicate that the genesis of the grievance or justification in the instant petitions would in fact relate back to the fishing rights which had been granted based on the Government Order dated 20.04.2009 whereby, the fishing rights in the area has been granted for the periods 2008 - 2009 upto 2012-2013. From the order which is produced at Annexure R3 to the objections statement of the Government, it is seen that in addition to the Fisheries Co-operative Society (R), Hampapura, K.R. Nagar Taluk, acting as a nodal agency the other fishing societies specified in the said order and the representatives of the said Societies who have filed the connected petitions were granted the fishing rights in the manner as indicated in the Government Order. Pursuant to the same, the lease agreement had been executed with regard to the manner in which the fishing rights were to be carried on by the said parties. Upto the present stage when the Fisheries Co-operative Society (R) have approached this Court, there was no serious issue which has arisen for consideration.
As noticed, the fishing rights were granted under the lease agreement pursuant to the order dated 20.04.2009 upto the period of 2012 - 2013. In that circumstance, Fisheries Co-operative Society (R) was before this Court in W.P. No. 39862/2011 seeking that the respondents viz., the Government Department be directed to release the fingerlings/fish seeds under the scheme of NFDB for a period of four years as contemplated under the scheme. In the said petition, this Court on taking note of the statement which had been filed on behalf of the Government and on extracting the same had taken into consideration that since the fish seeds were not supplied under the NFDB scheme during the years 2008-2010 to 2010-2011 as per the order issued to the Fisheries Co-operative Societies (R), the Government had also indicated that they would consider the extension of lease hold rights for a further period of three years that is 2013 - 14 to 2016 - 17. Taking into consideration the undertaking, the learned Judge disposed of W.P. No. 39862/2011 on 08.12.2011 with the following directions:-
This writ petition is therefore disposed of directing the 1st respondent to secure the fingerlings from the NFDB as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The 1st respondent is also directed to take steps in accordance with law to extend the leasehold rights of the petitioner-Society for a further period of three years from 2013-14 having regard to the delay on the part of the respondents in supplying the fingerlings/fish seeds. It is needless to observe that the 1st respondent has to take necessary consequential steps for consideration of extension of the lease so as to make up the loss caused to the petitioner, well before the expiry of the lease.
The Fisheries Co-operative Society (R) in the present petition in W.P. No. 31021/2013 in fact is aggrieved that the directions issued by this Court has not been complied except for passing the order dated 12.01.2012, whereby, lease period was extended from 2013 - 14 to 2016 - 17. Pursuant to the said order, in a normal course, the lease agreement was to be extended. By the impugned endorsement in the said petition, the Government has indicated that the execution of the lease agreement or the lease amount cannot be collected in view of the directions issued by the Hon''ble Minister and also presently, it is contended that the lease cannot be extended inasmuch as the violations relating to the earlier lease agreement, is to be enquired as the other societies had certain grievances against the Fisheries Co-operative Societies (R) and the enquiry report in that regard was pointing to the effect that there was certain misdemeanors said to have committed by the said Society. The petitioners in the other petitions have assailed the order dated 12.01.2012 itself whereby the lease period has been extended and whereunder Fisheries Co-operative Society (R) is seeking execution of lease agreement.
What is necessary to be noticed is that even by the order dated 12.01.2012, reference has been made to all the Societies which were also a part of the earlier order which has been passed on 20.04.2009 and Fisheries Co-operative Society is referred as nodal agency. If this aspect of the matter is kept in view, necessarily, even if the order dated 08.12.2011 passed in W.P. No. 39892/2011 is complied in its entirety by executing the lease deed, certainly, the Fisheries Co-operative Societies (R), Hampapura, can only be considered as one among them and as nodal agency and no exclusive fishing rights could be claimed nor was it intended so by this Court vide order dated 12.01.2012. Hence the grievance of the petitioners in connected petitions is misplaced.
Therefore, the only question for consideration at this juncture is as to whether the respondent at this juncture were justified in not executing the lease agreement and refusing to collect fee lease rental fixed therein due orders of the Hon''ble Minister when the order passed in W.P. No. 39862/2011 is not set aside, altered or modified.
Certain directions is said to have been issued by the Hon''ble Minister and also subsequent grievance said to have been made by the other Societies with regard to the non-compliance of the terms and the benefit denied to the said Societies has weighed with the respondents. To the said extent, since this Court by order dated 08.12.2011 in W.P. No. 39862/2011, has issued specific directions, certainly the lease period would have to be extended in the similar terms as had been done pursuant to the order dated 20.04.2009. I am of the said opinion for the reason that the earlier order and the lease deed executed for the period 2008 - 09 to 2012-13 was ordered to be extended by the order dated 08.12.2011 on taking note of the fact that for a period of three years from 2008 - 09 to 2010 - 11 the fish seeds had not been supplied under NFDB scheme. Therefore, the extension of three years is only by taking into consideration the said extenuating circumstances by which the lease deed could not have been effectively put into force for want of fish seeds.
In such circumstance, when the extension of the said period has been made, the present extension would also have to be in the same terms as had been done in the year 2009 and all conditions including the benefit given to all Societies including the Fisheries Co-operative Societies (R) which was acting as Nodal agency would have to be included, when the fresh lease deed is to be executed. Hence, to the said extent, the present endorsement which has been issued and assailed in the present petitions would not be sustainable.
The further question also arises with regard to certain allegations said to have been made by the other Societies and local fishermen against the Fisheries Cooperative Society (R) alleging that the earlier terms had been violated and the fishermen and other Societies were given raw deal in that regard though it had to act as the nodal agency. Though the learned Government Advocate by a memo filed subsequently has referred to an enquiry report, the proceedings if any required would have to be conducted notwithstanding the fact that the lease agreement renewing the lease hold rights in the manner indicated above is executed. For the extended period in any event the parties shall comply with the terms. For earlier period if there are any grievance and if it is established by the other Societies and if any action is required either against the Fisheries Co-operative Societies (R) or anybody else certainly, the Government Department concerned would be entitled to proceed in that regard but after providing opportunity to the parties concerned. Therefore, without prejudice to the said right, the respondents are directed to execute the lease deeds in compliance of the earlier order dated 08.12.2011 passed in W.P. No. 39862/2011, which has been partially complied by order dated 12.01.2012. On execution of the lease deed, all the Societies which earlier had the benefit under the order and the lease deeds executed in the year 2009 shall have similar rights. In regard to the allegations made against each other, an appropriate enquiry if need be held and completed in accordance with law. Certainly, it is also necessary to observe that the Director of Fisheries shall not remain as silent spectator but shall take steps to see that the scheme is implemented in its letter and spirit for the benefit of all the Societies and also fishermen of the area as per the scheme and agreement in that regard. The lease agreement in any event shall be executed as expeditiously as possible, but not later than four weeks from the date on which a certified copy of this order is received and it is open for the Department and Government to proceed in accordance with law with regard to the other allegations.
With the above directions, these petitions are disposed of.