Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Muthu vs State of Kerala

MUTHU vs State of Kerala

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Decided Jun 08, 2023
~4 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1363891

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Kerala High Court
Judge
Decided On
Case Number
WP(C)/18584/2023

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

MUTHU

Respondent

State of Kerala

Excerpt

.....w.p.(c) no. 18584 of 2023 ============================================================= dated this the 8th day of june, 2023judgmentthe above writ petition is filed with following prayers:“i. issue a direction or order setting aside ext.p-8 orderrejecting petitioners ext.p-3 & p-7 applications. ii. declare that petitioner is entitled to ply his trade as fisherman using traditional coracle (kottavallam) within the waters of kerala state. iii. issue an order or directing to the respondents to register petitioner’s ‘coracle’ as a permitted fishing vessel; and iv. grant such other or further relief as the petitioner might pray for and this honourable court may deem fit and proper.” (sic)2. according to the petitioner, he is a fisherman and makinghis livelihood by fishing from his indigenously made kottavallam (coracle) using permissible size and class of nets. he had applied for registration of his coracle which was rejected by the 4 th respondent. even though the petitioner challenges the same, the same is not -3- considered is the grievance. since there is no action, this writ petition is filed.3. heard the counsel for the petitioner and the government pleader.4. after hearing both sides, i am of the considered opinionthat the petitioner can challenge ext.p8 before the 2 nd respondent. at this stage, the counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner will submit an appeal against ext.p8 before the 2nd respondent and there may be a direction to consider the same. if that be so, the 2 nd respondent can be directed to consider the appeal if any filed, within a time frame. therefore, this writ petition is disposed of in the following manner:1. the petitioner is free to challenge ext.p8 by filing an appeal before the 2nd respondent, within two weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. -4-2. once such an appeal along with a stamped certified copy ofthis judgment together with a copy of this writ petition is.....

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF JUNE 2023 / 18TH JYAISHTA, 1945 WP(C) NO. 18584 OF 2023 PETITIONER/S: MUTHU, AGED 46 YEARS MUTHU, S/O PAKIRAIAH, 46 YEARS, FISHERMEN COLONY, NADUVILE(PART), CHAITHRAM VAIKOM P.O., VAIKOM KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686141 BY ADV DILIP J. AKKARA RESPONDENT/S:

1 STATE OF KERALA PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF FISHERIES, SECRETARIAT, PALLAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 2 DIRECTOR OF FISHERIES DIRECTORATE OF FISHERIES, VIKAS BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695033 3 DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF FISHERIES DEPARTMENT OF FISHERIES, PATTURAIKAL, THIRUVAMBADI P.O., THRISSUR, PIN - 680022 4 DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF FISHERIES DEPARTMENT OF FISHERIES, REVAATHI, KARAPPUZHA, KOTTAYAM WEST P.O., KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686003

OTHER PRESENT: SRI.B.S.SYAMANTAK, GP THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08.06.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: -2-

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.

====================================================== W.P.(C) No. 18584 of 2023 ============================================================= Dated this the 8th day of June, 2023

JUDGMENT

The above writ petition is filed with following prayers:

“I. Issue a direction or order setting aside Ext.P-8 order

rejecting petitioners Ext.P-3 & P-7 Applications. II. Declare that petitioner is entitled to ply his trade as fisherman using traditional Coracle (Kottavallam) within the waters of Kerala State. III. Issue an order or directing to the respondents to register Petitioner’s ‘Coracle’ as a permitted Fishing Vessel; and IV. Grant such other or further relief as the petitioner might pray for and this Honourable Court may deem fit and proper.” (sic)

2. According to the petitioner, he is a fisherman and making

his livelihood by fishing from his indigenously made Kottavallam (Coracle) using permissible size and class of nets. He had applied for registration of his Coracle which was rejected by the 4 th respondent. Even though the petitioner challenges the same, the same is not -3- considered is the grievance. Since there is no action, this writ petition is filed.

3. Heard the counsel for the petitioner and the Government Pleader.

4. After hearing both sides, I am of the considered opinion

that the petitioner can challenge Ext.P8 before the 2 nd respondent. At this stage, the counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner will submit an appeal against Ext.P8 before the 2nd respondent and there may be a direction to consider the same. If that be so, the 2 nd respondent can be directed to consider the appeal if any filed, within a time frame. Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of in the following manner:

1. The petitioner is free to challenge Ext.P8 by filing an appeal before the 2nd respondent, within two weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. -4-

2. Once such an appeal along with a stamped certified copy of

this judgment together with a copy of this writ petition is received, the 2nd respondent will consider the same and pass appropriate orders in it, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within one month from the date of receipt of the appeal. sd/- P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE das -5- APPENDIX OF WP(C) 18584/2023 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P-1 PHOTOCOPY OF ADHAR CARD NO.4230 4990 0135 ISSUED BY THE UNIQUE IDENTIFICATION AUTHORITY OF INDIA TO PETITIONER Exhibit P-2 PHOTOCOPY OF 'APPEAL FOR INCLUSION OF

IN THE LISTS PUBLISHED BY THE FISHERIES OFFICER' DATED 02-10-2017 SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT

ExhibitP-3 PHOTOCOPY OF APPLICATION FOR REGISTRATION OF FISHING VESSELS & INDEPENDENT NETS DATED 25-03-17 SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER ExhibitP-4 PHOTOCOPY OF JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 24535/21 DATED 03-01-22 Exhibit- P5 PHOTOCOPY OF COMMUNICATION NO. C/1528/2020 DATED 10-03-22 OF 3RD RESPONDENT ADDRESSED TO 4TH ExhibitP-6 PHOTOCOPY OF 1ST PAGE OF PASS BOOK DATED 16-02-22 ISSUED BY KERALA FISHERMEN'S WELFARE FUND BOARD Exhibit P-7 PHOTOCOPY OF APPLICATION FOR REGISTRATION OF FISHING VESSELS AND INDEPENDENT NETS DATED 16-02-22 Exhibit P-8 PHOTOCOPY OF ORDER DATED 19-07-22 REJECTING PETITIONERS APPLICATION TO REGISTER HIS 'CORACLE' AS PERMISSIBLE FISHING VESSEL Exhibit P-9 PHOTOCOPY OF PETITIONERS PETITION DATED 24-8-22 PRAYING THE SAME TO BE TREATED AS APPEAL SUBMITTED TO 1ST & 3RD RESPONDENTS Exhibit P-10 PHOTOCOPY OF TAX INVOICE NO.49 DATED 21-07-21 ISSUED TO PETITIONER BY 'DUA TRADERS' FOR FISHING NET PURCHASED

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial