AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
K.M. Joseph, J.—Petitioners have approached this Court seeking the following relief:
to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the Ist, 2nd and 3rd respondents to give adequate police protection to the life and property of the petitioners and their fellow fishermen for conducting fishing in a peaceful manner.
Briefly put, the case of the petitioners is as follows:
Petitioners are traditional fishermen who owns ''Kolly valloms''. They along with 7 fellow fishermen used to conduct fishing in the sea. They have been conducting fishing for the past several years and the income derived from the same is their only source of livelihood. The 6th respondent is the Parish Priest of St. Peters Forance Church, Anchuthengu who arbitrarily demarcated boundaries in the sea for conducting fishing by the persons who are residing at Anchuthengu and Poothura. It is stated that, as per the Kerala Marine Fishing Regulation Act 1981 no person can be restricted from conducting fishing in the sea without the direction of the 5th respondent and till date the 5th respondent has not made any demarcation for fishing being carried out by the fishermen at Anchutengu and Poothura. While so, on 26.11.2012 when the petitioners and their 7 fellow were fishing in the sea, the agents led by the 6th respondent created violence by attempting to cause fire in the boats. Their allegation was that the petitioners and their fellow fishermen trespassed into their fishing area demarcated by the 6th respondent. They have forcibly taken 2 boats and locked the workers in the said boat for 2 days. Later on, they were released with a dreadful warning that in the event of the petitioners and others trespassing into their area again, they would be exterminated and they would set the boat to fire. In that circumstance the petitioners and the other traditional fishermen at Poothura lodged a complaint before the Ist respondent stating the aforesaid incidents. However, the police did not take any affirmative endeavor to prevent the atrocities of the 6th respondent and failed to grant necessary protection to the petitioners and their fellow fishermen. Hence the petition.
We heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the 7th respondent and also the learned Government Pleader.
We have already passed an interim order on 10.12.2012 which reads as under:
We direct that there will be police patrolling in the concerned area.
Subsequently, we have further passed the following interim order dated 14.12.2012.
Besides patrolling, we direct the 2nd and 3rd respondents to give adequate protection to the life and property of the petitioners for conducting fishing in a peaceful manner for a period of three weeks.
The learned counsel for the 7th respondent would point out that, there is a direction by this Court in regard to the illegal fish trading in the public place. Learned Government Pleader would submit as follows: The matter was settled between the parties in the presence of a senior police officer and MLA. According to the petitioners, there was no written settlement and there is no such authority as such. There is no representation for respondent No. 6.
In the circumstance of the case, we see no reason why we should not make the interim order absolute. The Writ Petition is disposed of making the interim orders absolute and with the direction that the orders shall be complied with as and when required.