Lukmon C.P vs Principal Secretary

Devan Ramachandran, J

The petitioners in these two cases - which have been heard together - are owners of fishing boats, which were taken into custody by the competent Authorities, on the allegation that they have violated Section 4 of the Kerala Marine Fishing Regulation Act, 1980 (“Act” for short).

The petitioners assert that they have not committed any violation as alleged and that they have been put to great detriment because, even though Rule 21 of the Kerala Marine Fishing Regulation Rule, 2018 (‘Rules’ for short), mandate that the Authorised Officer, as prescribed under Section 16 thereof of the ‘Act’, is to hear the parties within 10 days and to consider their objections, leading to appropriate orders, no action has been taken until now. They, therefore, pray that the impugned proceedings in these cases, be set aside.

Sri.V.Premchand – learned counsel for the petitioners in both cases, submitted that, as far as the petitioner in WP(C)No.40271/2023 is concerned, the vessel in question was released to him on a Self Bond; while, that involved in WP(C)No.39584/2023 had been refused to be and is now in a virtual state of disrepair and likely to sink. He submitted that, therefore, his clients have been constrained to approach this Court, seeking that the competent Authority be directed to act as per Rule 21 of the ‘Rules’; and that, in the meanwhile, the vessel involved in WP(C)No.39584/2023 be released to the petitioner therein on his Self Bond.

Sri.Sunil Kumar Kuriakose – the learned Government Pleader, in response to the afore submissions, submitted that these writ petitions are unnecessary because the competent Authority has already issued notices to the petitioners to appear before him, under the ambit of Rule 21 of the ‘Rules’. He submitted that it is without awaiting further proceedings that they have approached this Court through this writ petition. He added that as regards the vessel in WP(C)No.39584/2023, the same can be released soon after the competent Authority completes procedure in terms of the afore measures taken.

When I evaluate and consider the afore rival submissions, it is indubitable that even respondents do have a case that Rule 21 of the ‘Rules’ can be avoided in any manner whatsoever. In fact, the stand of the learned Government Pleader is that it has been complied with and that the parties are being heard today; though, I must record that it is the specific case of Sri.V.Premchand that his clients have not received any such notices.

Therefore, in order to balance the rival interests, I deem it appropriate to dispose of these writ petitions with the following directions:

a) WP(C)No.39584/2023 is allowed to the limited extent of directing the competent Authority to release the vessel in question to the petitioner on appropriate term.

b) The competent Authority will hear the petitioners in both these cases within the purlieu of Rule 21 of the ‘Rules’, after allowing them to file objections and issue appropriate final orders in this regard, as expeditiously as is possible, but not later than two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. For this purpose, the petitioners, if they do not appear today before the said Authority, will be issued with another notice and will be heard and their version recorded; and the opinion of the said Authority on it will be reflected in the resultant order.

c) Needless to say, the fate of the vessels involved in this case will depend upon the decision to be taken by the competent Authority, in terms of the afore directions.