Fisheries Welfare Co-Operative … vs State Of Karnataka on 1 September, 2010

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

DATED THIS THE 15* DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 20ifQ:.t  

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRJUSTICE AJITQK éUi_.\i:4J."A'i.E   E ~ 7

WRIT PETITION No.2i3933 oifirzoio  P
BETWEEN:  E   

Fisheries Welfare Co-op'era'tiveL  ;

Society Ltd.,  V  '

Piilekerenahalii Viilage  

Chitradurga Ta~'iu'i'<T._ai1d  ._ V ~  

District, Repby44itsV_S--_ecretariyu.  :13 ' ..Petitioner

(By Sri   ;}  

AND 

1. State of,_Karna'tai'<a = _.
Rep by its Secr.etar"~»,/ 
Diepartment 'o.f&Fisheries
"M§S;.."'iBui'i!ding, Béifigaiore.

 ._,2'.'  Ziilla Panchayath

E'chitrati'urga"District
.(;hitrad_ur{.;a
Repby its Chief Executive Officer.

'A  *TaheVVAssistant Director of

 v .e_Fisheries (Grade--2)
 J.C.R. Extension



Chitradurga. ..Responclents
(By Sri S.B. Shahapur, AGA., for R1 to R3) A i
This writ petition is fiied under Articles  .
of the Constitution of India, praying to call for'~rjeco'rds and] 
deciare that the Government Ordermciated.'2'8i;-$2,006"vide 
Annexure-D as illegal and contrary to c_pi=ov.isi.o_ns_ of"'the".
Karnataka Transparency in Pubiic P_r0C:iJ're*:Tiéi¥it'ACi: 1'9,9~9.'<1.i_:

This writ petition comisig'«-on for..pVrelVimiinaryv«-h.eVa.i9inQ, 
this day the Court made the fo'i~l.owing:--  '  

V o R i3"E iris; 
Mr.S.B.ShahapLir, "T-llealmjecl  directed to
take notice Wt'  
2,. --------  ;;""c»:'l;'~<)u"€,41'.¢l_l'*\:V"tlhe-....rraatter is iisted for
preiimi'n_ary_ hea'ri'ii:j,'r».iiiiiath'V.consent, it is taken up for

final _dispVo"sa|;' matter arises in the following

 '.    A. H  ..... .. V

V"'--..Vl"TheV"."_jc_p'eVt'i.tioner is a cooperative society

 registerediinder the Co--operat§ve Societies, Act. Its

V' '{farVea«--..of operation is spread over the entire Chitradurga

 District. The petitioner's grievance is that in the first

}



instance, the fishing rights were being granted by
private negotiations. Petitioner was before this Court

in WP.No.26937/2009. This Court while 
the ciaim of the petitioner, was of the 
fishing rights are required to tie».
the tender/pubiic auction   
negotiation. Indeed, this  has  ratio '' V
in the case of Sri Kri.sfina,..iFish'ermen' Cowopfierative
Society Limited vs.he_  rep.

by its Secretarkr   of Animal

Husbarhndrif others, reported in ILR
2009  r1859.' notwithstanding such a an

obseiryaetion  by: this Court, the respondents have

 rcorne  identicai notification at Annexure--F,

Hwh'e--re of tender or pubiic auction, they

 propo.se.;to invite applications to lease the tank in

VA "~:if"ciu'e's«tion for a specific period. Apparently, the

V'  respondents are required to foiiow the directions

19/



T' v.__"pr'ivate rs-egov_tiatvi'ons.

  ~.lf"i.ii(rit*~«:oetition stands allowed accordingly.

,4-

issued by this Court. This Court in no uncertain

terms, has directed that the fishing rights in t.liji'@..:'S:ta--te

shaii be by tender/public auction with 

Government Order dated by if

private negotiations. Notwithsthandinig  

direction issued by this  thv.e'----respfonVcients'V are if

granting fishing rig.htS.g_  basis, '"which is
impermissible. HavingV_sa_idl'."sci,v  view that
Annexure--F,  .i:s':--"|'i'a--b»!'e to be quashed.

Accordingly,   

Once again ai;iiandaigm...isis issued fito the third
respondent_vthat"'the fis-hiAngVri"ghts in the State shall be
by"*vtend..e:r/iOub'i~ic auc'ti'on with reference to the

Goy'e.rnrnentf'»--..Q"rdVe.r'.i.~ dated 26.2.2006 and not by

E

4

J?



Rule is issued and made absoiute.

Mr.S.E3.Shahapur, learned AGA is perm_4ivttlecf:'_'~tQ

file memo of apilearance within four weeks.«, "   A

  .

*ck / 211(-