Dismissed

Malpe Trwal Boat (370) Menugarar Tandeler Sangaha (R) v. Union of India

Karnataka HC1 Feb 2021WP/51856/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a preliminary hearing of a PIL filed by Malpe Trawl Boat, the High Court at Bengaluru directed the petitioners to make a fresh representation to the State Government for compliance of a Central letter. The petition for quash of the State Government order was subsequently dismissed as unnecessary.

What did the court decide?

The petitioners were directed to file a fresh representation under Article 226 for mandamus, and the immediate prayer for quashing was not granted.

Malpe Trwal Boat (370) Menugarar Tandeler Sangaha… — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 01^st DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2021

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR. ABHAY S. OKA, CHIEF JUSTICE

¶5

AND

¶6

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO.51856/2019 (GM-RES-PIL)

¶8

BETWEEN

¶9

1 . MALPE TRWAL BOAT (370) MENUGARAR TANDELER SANGAHA (R) NO.1-82, SHREE VINAYAKA KODI BENGRE MALPE-576218 REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT GANESH SUVARNA

¶10

2 . M S YATNATTI S/O M D YATNATTI AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS R/A NO.107 GROUND FLOOR ROYAL RESIDENCY APARTMENT COMPLEX ENKAY FARMS NO.2608-/48/1 VALAGERAHALLI DUBASIPALYA BENGALURU-560059

¶11

...Petitioners

¶12

(By Sri. DIWAKARA K, ADVOCATE)

¶13

¶14

AND

¶15

1 . UNION OF INDIA, FISHERIES DEPARTMENT INDIAN UNION GOVERNMENT REPRESENTED BY ITS JOINT SECRETARY KRISHI BHAVAN NEW DELHI-110 114.

¶16

2 . ANIMAL HUSBANDARY AND FISHERIES DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS UNDER SECRETARY VIKAS SOUDHA BENGALURU-560001

¶17

3 . DIRECTORATE OF FISHERIES GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR V.V.TOWER, 3^RD FLOOR VIDHANA VEEDHI BENGALURU-560001

¶18

…Respondents

¶19

(By Sri. GURURAJ YADRAVI, CGSC FOR R-1, Sri.B.V.KRISHNA, AGA FOR R-2 & R-3)

¶20

This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the impugned order dtd.15.11.2016 passed by the Respondent No.2 (AnnexureA) along with letter dtd.15.11.2018 and notice letter dtd.26.7.2019 (both collectively Annexure-F series).

¶21

This writ petition coming on for preliminary hearing, this day, Chief Justice made the following:

¶22

¶23

ORDER

¶24

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners states that he is not pressing Prayer at Clause-(b).

¶25

Prayer-(a) pertains to quashing of order at AnnexureA dated 15^th November 2017 issued by the State Government. The letter dated 15^th November 2016 which is the second challenge, is addressed by the Deputy Director of Fisheries, Udupi to the Deputy Commissioner of Udupi. The Letter dated 15^th November 2018 addressed to the petitioners is again based on order dated 15^th November 2016 (Annexure-A), by which request made by the petitioners for giving an opportunity for Bulls Trawling Fishery in Exclusive Economic Zone under the limit of Union Government has been rejected.

¶26

The learned Additional Government Advocate has invited our attention to the order dated 10^th November, 2017, by which State Government’s order dated 15^th November, 2016 (at Annexure-A) has been withdrawn. The letters dated 15^th November 2018 and 26^th July 2019 (both Annexure-F

¶27

¶28

series) cannot be acted upon as the same are based on order dated 15^th November 2016 (Annexure-A) which has been withdrawn.

¶29

The State Government has relied upon Annexure-R1 which is the letter dated 07^th March 2018 issued by the Fisheries Development Commissioner of the Government of India to Principal Secretary/Secretaries of Fisheries of all maritime States/Union Territories including Karnataka. The grievance of the petitioners is that the State Government has not issued a Government Order in terms of Paragraph 3 of the said letter dated 07^th March 2018.

¶30

The petitioners will have to make a representation calling upon the State Government to comply with Paragraph 3 of the said letter dated 07^th March 2018. If the representation is not favourably acted upon, the petitioners will have to file a fresh petition seeking a writ of mandamus in that behalf.

¶31

¶32

Subject to what is observed above, Prayer-(a) need

¶33

not be granted. The petition is accordingly, disposed of.

Sd/CHIEF JUSTICE

Sd/-

JUDGE

bnv

Malpe Trwal Boat (370) Menugarar Tandeler Sangaha (R) v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Malpe Trwal Boat (370) Menugarar Tandeler Sangaha (R) v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri B Shanthakumar Vs Shri Ravindra D C

Smt Manjula a Vs Sri Mahadeva

M/S. Sna Stone Crusher Pvt. Ltd. Vs the State Government of Karnataka

Smt Nandamma Vs the State of Karnataka

M/S Srinidhi Enterprises Vs the State of Karnataka

Noor Mohammed Vs Dr. Nagaraj