IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C) No. 5223 of 2008(V)
1. KERALA SWATHANTRA MATSYA THOZHILALI
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE STATE OF KEALA REP.BY ITS SECRETARY
... Respondent
2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,TRIVANDRUM.
3. DIRECTOR OF CIVIL SUPPLIES,
4. MANAGING DIRECTOR,MATSAFED,TRIVANDRUM.
5. DIRECTOR OF FISHERIES,DIRECTORATE,
6. THE RATIONING CONTROLLER,
For Petitioner :SRI.SUMAN CHAKRAVARTHY
For Respondent :SRI.P.K.VIJAYA MOHANAN, SC, MATSYAFED
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :15/02/2008
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
=============================
W.P.(C)NOS.5223 &5379 OF 2008
==============================
DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2008
JUDGMENT
The challenge in these writ petitions is against the
Government order dated 25-1-2008 directing a joint inspection
of the outboard engines of fishing boats.
2. It is seen that on the basis of guidelines for joint
verification for kerosene permits in fishing sector issued on
28-10-2007, joint inspection is to be conducted and that the
fitness of the outboard engines are certified and on that basis
kerosene is to be supplied at subsidised rates. It is stated in
Ext.P1 dated 28-10-2007 that permit shall not be issued to
outboard engines which are more than six years old.
3. According to the petitioners, this process was already
completed and now yet another fresh process of joint verification
is ordered by the Government by order dated 25-1-2008 and it is
in this background, these writ petitions have been filed
challenging the fresh joint verification.
W.P.C. 5223 & 5379/2008 -2-
4. As already stated, on the basis of the certificate issued
after joint verification, a concessional supply of subsidised
kerosene is given and, therefore, what is reflected in Ext.P1 is a
scheme for concessional supply of kerosene. The government
having introduced the said scheme is always at liberty to
modify the scheme and it is in pursuance of that right of the
Government, they have issued Ext.P4 order wherein the
condition in the earlier order that engines more than six years
old will not be issued permit has been deleted. It was directed
that irrespective of the age of the engine based on its
seaworthiness, the outboard engine would be eligible for
concessional supply of kerosene.
5. The petitioners contend that Ext.P4 is issued to favour a
group of people who own out board engines, which are very old
and are not seaworthy. They also pointed out the possibility of
the kerosene being black marketed. It may be true that Ext.P4
and the concession extended therein are capable of being
misused, but that will not invalidate the scheme of the
Government. If it is misused, it is for the authorities to take
care of that situation and the petitioners can point out violations
W.P.C. 5223 & 5379/2008 -3-
for rectifying the situation. However, that cannot restrain the
Government from modifying a policy.
6. I also do not think that on account of the fresh joint
verification as per Ext.P4 any prejudice is caused to the
petitioners. In any case they being the beneficiaries of a
concession, are bound to comply with the conditions thereof.
If any joint verification is conducted, the beneficiaries are obliged
to make their outboard engines for joint verification. I do not
find anything illegal in Ext.P4 order.
7. The petitioners pray that the Government should be
directed to formulate specific guidelines for the presence of
technical experts for implementing that scheme. It may be
desirable to have a defect free system by inclusion of technically
competent persons to assess the seaworthiness of the outboard
engines. That certainly is a matter requiring the attention of
the respondents and I leave it them to formulate such a fool
proof scheme for their future guidance.
The writ petitions are dismissed.
ks. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE