Full Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF FEBRUARY 2022 / 4TH PHALGUNA, 1943 PETITIONERS:
1 BENADICT.S AGED 48 YEARS S/O. SEBASTIAN, KALLELIVAYAL PURAYIDAM, VADY, KAIKULANGARA WEST, CUTCHERY (PO), KOLLAM DISTRICT. 2 JAMES, AGED 45 YEARS S/O. F.ALOYSIOUS, PANTHAL VEEDU PURAYIDAM, KAIKULANGARA WEST, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 3 STEPHEN, AGED 51 YEARS S/O. VARGHEES, MAMU PURAYIDOM, THANGASSERI, KAIKULANGARA WEST, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 4 JOY A., AGED 48 YEARS S/O. F.ALOYSIOUS, PANTHAL VEEDU PURAYIDAM, KAIKULANGARA WEST, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADVS. N.SUNIL JOSEPH B.BIPIN
RESPONDENTS: 1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF FISHERIES AND HARBOR, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695001. 2 THE DIRECTOR OF CIVIL SUPPLIES, OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF CIVIL SUPPLIES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695001. 3 THE DISTRICT SUPPLY OFFICER, OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT SUPPLY OFFICER, CIVIL STATION KOLLAM, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN-691013.
4 THE TALUK SUPPLY OFFICER, OFFICE OF THE TALUK SUPPLY OFFICER, KOLLAM TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN-691013. 5 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, KOLLAM, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN-691013. 6 THE DIRECTOR OF FISHERIES DIRECTORATE OF FISHERIES, 4TH FLOOR, VIKAS BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695033. 7 DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF FISHERIES, OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF FISHERIES, CIVIL STATION, KOLLAM, PIN-691013. 8 THE FISHERIES OFFICER, MATSYA BHAVAN, KAIKULANGARA WEST, VADY, CUTCHERY (PO), KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN-691013. 9 THE MANAGER, DISTRICT MATSYAFED OFFICE, SAKTHIKULANGARA (PO), KOLLAM, PIN-691581. BY AD.SRI.JOBY JOSEPH, GOVERNMENT PLEADER
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23.02.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J ------------------------------- W.P.(C)No. 1120 of 2022 -------------------------------- Dated this the 23rd day of February, 2022
JUDGMENT
The above writ petition is filed with the following prayers:
“i. To issue a declaration that the classification made in Exhibit P5 order excluding engines having more than 10 years old from the purview of allotment of Kerosene permit is illegal, arbitrary, irrational, issued without any application of mind or conducting any scientific study, vitiated with malafides and thus unsustainable. ii. To issue a declaration that the petitioners are entitled for kerosene permit for using their fishing vessels described in Exhibits P1 to P4 registration certificate notwithstanding the fact that their engines were more than 10 years old. iii. To issue a writ of mandamus or any order or direction, directing the respondents to accept the applications of the petitioners' for Kerosene permit and grant kerosene permits to the petitioners for using their fishing vessels described in Exhibits P1 to P4 registration certificates irrespective of the year of manufacture of the engines of traditional fishing vessels of the petitioners. iv. to issue such other further reliefs as this
Honourable Court may deem fit and proper in the facts
and circumstances of this case.”[SIC]
2. The grievance of the petitioners are mainly
against Clause 8 in Ext.P5 order passed by the Government. This Court disposed of a similar writ petition on 21.02.2022 and in the light of the same, this writ petition also can be disposed of. This Court in
judgment dated 21.02.2022 in W.P.(C)No.370 of 2022
observed like this:
“6. On the other hand, the learned Government Pleader submitted that a statement is filed by the 2 nd respondent. The Government Pleader submitted that inspection is now deferred because of the pandemic situation and condition No.3 is imposed in Ext.P1 with an intention to ensure accident free pollution free fishing and efficient use of Kerosene by active fishermen. The Government Pleader takes me through the statement filed by the 2nd respondent.
7. I considered the contentions of the
petitioner and the Government Pleader. According to me, there is some force in the argument of the petitioners. But the submission of the Government Pleader that the condition imposed in Ext.P1 is to ensure accident free pollution free fishing and efficient use of Kerosene by active fishermen, is also to be borne in mind in such situation. Anyway, it is a matter to be
re-considered by the authority concerned, considering the difficulties raised by the fishermen community, especially during this pandemic situation. The petitioner already submitted Ext.P2 before the authority concerned. In paragraph 6 of the statement filed by the 2nd respondent, it is stated that the inspection of the boats are now deferred. It will be better to extract paragraph 6 of the statement filed by the 2nd respondent. “6. It is pertinent to note that the rescheduling of joint verification date from 09.01.2022 to 16.01.2022 was due to the religious ceremony at Vizhinjam Church and the verification was postponed not due to the complaint filed by the Petitioner. Even though every arrangements were made for carrying the inspection on 16.01.2022, due to the rise in COVID cases, the same has been postponed. The next date for joint verification is yet to be scheduled.” In the light of the above submission, according to me, the inspection of the engine of the boats can be deferred till Ext.P2 is considered by the authority concerned. Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of in the following manner: i. The 1st respondent is directed to consider Ext.P2 representation submitted by the petitioners, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. ii. Before passing final orders in Ext.P2, the 1 st respondent will give an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. iii. Till final orders are passed in Ext.P2, the inspection of the engine based on Exts.P1 and P3 will be deferred.”
In the light of the above judgment, this writ petition is also disposed of in the following manner: i. The petitioners are free to file a representation before the 1st respondent narrating their grievance, within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this
judgment.
ii. Once such a representation is received, the 1 st respondent will consider the same along with other similar representation produced in W.P(C)No.370 of 2022 and pass appropriate orders in accordance to law. iii. Till final orders are passed in the representation as directed above, the inspection of the boats of the petitioners based on Ext.P5 shall be deferred. iv. The 1st respondent will serve a copy of the order passed in the representation to the petitioners. Sd/- P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE DM APPENDIX OF WP(C) 1120/2022 PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION DATED 21.12.2021 ISSUED TO THE 1ST PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION DATED 8.5.2020 ISSUED TO THE 2ND PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION DATED 20.12.2021 ISSUED TO THE 3RD PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION DATED 1.1.2022 ISSUED BY THE 7TH RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF G.O.(RT) NO.718/2021/ FISHERIES AND HARBOR DEPARTMENT DATED 2.12.2021. RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS : NIL //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE