Dismissed

Sri. Sunil Kumar K.S., v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC13 Apr 2023WP/3705/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petitions challenging tender notifications issued to put existing fishing rights to auction were disposed of. The court rejected the claim for lease extension, holding that extending the lease based on illegal extensions granted to others would constitute negative equality. The petitions stood rejected.

What did the court decide?

Petitions dismissed; tenant not entitled to third lease extension; tender notification upheld.

Sri. Sunil Kumar K.S., Vs the State… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

WP No. 3705 of 2023 C/W WP No. 3811 of 2023

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2023 BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 3705 OF 2023 (GM-TEN)

¶5

C/W

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO. 3811 OF 2023 (GM-TEN)

¶7

IN W.P NO.3705/2023

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI. SUNIL KUMAR K.S., S/O. SHIVARAMU K.L., AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, RESIDENT OF KONASALE VILLAGE, KOPPA HOBLI, MADDUR TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 419.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

Digitally signed by PADMAVATHI B K

¶12

Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

(BY SRI. ANANDA K., ADVOCATE)

¶14

AND:

¶15

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, DEPARTMENT OF ANIMAL HUSBANDARY AND FISHERIES, M.S. BUILDING, DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR BEEDHI, BENGALURU - 560 001. REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶16

THE DIRECTOR OF FISHERIES, DEPARTMENT OF FISHERIES,

¶17

¶18

WP No. 3705 of 2023 C/W WP No. 3811 of 2023

¶19

3RD FLOOR, PODIUM BLOCK, VISHWESHWARAIAH CENTRE, DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR BEEDHI, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶20

THE JOINT DIRECTOR OF FISHERIES, NO.12A, 9TH CROSS, K BLOCK, RAMAKRISHNANAGARA(DATTAGALLI), MYSURU - 571 022.

¶21

THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF FISHERIES, ZILLA PANCHAYATH MANDYA COMPLEX, MANDYA - 571 401.

¶22

THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF FISHERIES, MADDUR TALUK, MADDURU, MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 428.

¶23

…RESPONDENTS

¶24

(BY SRI. B.V. KRISHNA, AGA)

¶25

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE EMERGENT OFFICIAL MEMORANDUM BEARING NO.DOF-TECHOALL/2/142/2022 E-819936 DATED 24.01.2023 ISSUED BY THE R2 AT ANNEXURE-M AND ETC.,

¶26

IN W.P NO.3811/2023

¶27

BETWEEN:

¶28

SRI. GENDEGOWDA, S/O. LATE GENDETHIMMEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,

¶29

3 - WP No. 3705 of 2023 C/W WP No. 3811 of 2023

¶30

R/AT NILUVAGILU VILLAGE, MADDUR TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 419.

¶31

…PETITIONER

¶32

(BY SRI. P. ANANDA, ADVOCATE)

¶33

AND:

¶34

STATE OF KARNATAKA, DEPARTMENT OF ANIMAL HUSBANDRY AND FISHERIES (FISHERIES), VIKASA SOUDHA, DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDI, BENGALURU - 560 001. REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY.

¶35

THE DIRECTOR, THE DEPARTMENT OF FISHERIES, 2ND FLOOR, PODIUM BLOCK, VISHWESHWARAIAH CENTRE, DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDI, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶36

THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR, THE DEPARTMENT OF FISHERIES, ZILLA PANCHAYATH,

¶37

MANDYA, MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 401.

¶38

THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, THE DEPARTMENT OF FISHERIES, MADDUR TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 428.

¶39

…RESPONDENTS

¶40

(BY SRI. B.V. KRISHNA, AGA)

¶41

¶42

WP No. 3705 of 2023 C/W WP No. 3811 of 2023

¶43

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING THE URGENT MEMORANDUM BEARING NO.DOFTECHOALL/2/153/2022 E-824605 DATED 23.01.2023 ISSUED BY THE R-2 VIDE ANNEXURE-L AND ETC.,

¶44

THESE WRIT PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶45

ORDER

¶46

IN WRIT PETITION NO. 3811 OF 2023 :

¶47

The petitioner is before this Court calling in question e-tender Notification dated 02.02.2023 and its foundation dated 23.01.2023, whereby the fishing rights that were existing in favour of the petitioner were sought to be put to auction. The petitioner has also sought a direction by issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing respondents No.2 and 4 to consider his representation and extend the term of lease.

¶48

Similar relief is sought in the companion petition. Hence, both the matters challenge the very same tender notification albeit being licensees of different fishing tanks, they are taken up together and disposed of by this common order.

¶49

¶50

WP No. 3705 of 2023 C/W WP No. 3811 of 2023

¶51

Heard Sri. Ananda P., learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri B.V. Krishna, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondents.

¶52

Brief facts that lead the petitioner to this court as borne out from the pleadings are as follows:

¶53

The narration runs this way: The Assistant Director of Fisheries/respondent No.4 calls for a tender in the year 2015 to lease out Niluvagilu Tank, Maddur Taluk, Mandya District for the purpose of fishing for five years commencing from 2015-16. The petitioner participates and emerges as a successful bidder. In pursuance whereof, the 4^th respondent by an order dated 10.08.2015 assigned fishing rights in favour of the petitioner with effect from 2015-16 to 2019-20 subject to conditions. The petitioner pursuant to aforesaid grant of fishing rights, started fishing activity. In the year 2016-17, the State was hit by draught so also the area in which the petitioner was a lessee of the fish tank. In these circumstances, the licences

¶54

that were granted to other fish tanks were extended for a period of one year with effect from 2017-18. This benefit was

¶55

¶56

WP No. 3705 of 2023 C/W WP No. 3811 of 2023

¶57

given to the petitioner as well as it was a general order issued by the State Government

¶58

In the year 2018-19, the Government had extended the lease owing to the tank that the petitioner had been allotted was closed for civil work and for restoration and rejuvenation of the tank. Therefore, the petitioner was given one year extension to carry out fishing activity in the aforesaid tank. When things stood thus, time comes about for the petitioner to give out the tank as the lease came to an end despite the petitioner being a beneficiary of two extensions. The petitioner then submits a representation on 28.06.2022 addressed to the 4^th respondent/Assistant Director of Fisheries seeking extension of lease in his favour as certain civil works had been undertaken for a period of one year and one month during the subsistence of lease. Upon consideration of the representation, the 4^th respondent by a communication dated 30.11.2022 recommends extension of lease period in favour of the petitioner. Though the 4^th respondent had recommended extension of lease, the 3^rd respondent rejects the recommendation observing that there was no provision under the Circular/Government order with regard to lease of fishing

¶59

¶60

WP No. 3705 of 2023 C/W WP No. 3811 of 2023

¶61

right in tanks for extension beyond a particular period. The petitioner calls the said directions in question before this Court in the subject petition. Subsequent representations given after the said rejection have also yielded no result in favour of the petitioner. The State goes on to issue a memorandum on 23.01.2023 directing the 4^th respondent to call for a tender for grant of fishing rights in the said tank and the tender notification was issued on 02.02.2023 seeking to lease out the tank for a period of 5 years. These orders/notifications forms the challenge in the subject petition.

¶62

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that the petitioner is also entitled to extension of lease, as is considered in the case of others. The 4^th respondent had recommended extension of lease of the petitioner and notwithstanding the same, tender notification is now issued contrary to the said recommendation. He would seek a mandamus to consider extension for a period of one year from the date of expiry of the lease.

¶63

On other hand, the learned Additional Government Advocate has filed affidavit of the Assistant Director of fisheries

¶64

8 - WP No. 3705 of 2023 C/W WP No. 3811 of 2023

¶65

pursuant to the direction of this Court seeking to demonstrate that extension was granted to the petitioner not once, but twice and the petitioner is now wanting to seek a third extension which is also tacitly granted as he is fishing even as on date. Therefore, the petitioner who was a recipient of the lease in the year 2015 continues to fish till 2023 for 8 long years. Therefore, he cannot be seen to seek any further extension and seeks dismissal of the petition.

¶66

have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the respective learned counsel and have perused the material on record.

¶67

he afore-narrated facts are not in dispute. The petitioner was a recipient of lease with effect from 01.07.2014 to 30.06.2019. The lease period was extended on two occasions. The extension was on account of two different reasons – one the State was draught hit in the year 2016-17 and therefore, a general extension of all leases was granted by the State Government and the other with the on-set of Covid19, one more year of extension was granted as fishing activities had come to a standstill then. The petitioner becomes the

¶68

9 - WP No. 3705 of 2023 C/W WP No. 3811 of 2023

¶69

beneficiary of extensions of lease and later submits a representation for further extension on the score that for one year and one month lake rejuvenation had taken place and civil work had come in the way of his fishing activities. The 4^th respondent/Assistant Director on the representation

¶70

recommends the case of the petitioner for extension of lease. It is this recommendation that the petitioner wants to generate a right over again. Therefore, the recommendation is quoted

¶71

herein for the purpose of quick reference:

¶72

" ªÀÄÄAzÀÄªÀgÉzÀAvÉ PÁAiÀÄð¥Á®PÀ C©üAiÀÄAvÀgÀgÀ, PÁªÉÃj ¤ÃgÁªÀj ¤UÀªÀÄ(¤) ªÀÄAqÀå gÀªÀgÀÄ PÉÆÃt¸Á¯É PÉgÉAiÀÄ PÁªÀÄUÁjAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¢.07/07/2021 gÀAzÀÄ ¥ÁægÀA¨sÀUÉÆAqÀÄ ¢.02/01/2022 gÀAzÀÄ ªÀÄÄPÁÛAiÀÄªÁVgÀÄªÀÅzÁV w½¹gÀÄvÁÛgÉ. F CªÀ¢üAiÀÄ°è PÉgÉAiÀÄ fÃuÉÆÃðzsÁÝgÀ PÁªÀÄUÁj £ÀqÉ¹zÀÄÝ, ¸ÀzÀj «¸ÀÛgÀuÉ CªÀ¢ü G¥ÀAiÉÆÃUÀPÉÌ §A¢gÀÄªÀÅ¢®èªÉAzÀÄ UÀÄwÛUÉzÁgÀgÀÄ «£ÀAw¹gÀÄvÁÛgÉ. ºÁUÁV PÁªÀÄUÁj PÉÊUÉÆArgÀÄªÀ CªÀ¢üUÉ ªÀiÁvÀæ ¹Ã«ÄvÀªÁV ¸ÀPÁðgÀ wzÀÄÝ¥Àr DzÉÃ±À ¸ÀASÉå: ¥À¸ÀA«ÄÃ 45 «ÄÃEE 2014, ¢£ÁAPÀ: 27/08/2014 gÀ£ÀéAiÀÄ ¥ÁªÀw ¸À»vÀ 2 ªÀµÀðUÀ¼À CªÀ¢üUÉ «¸ÀÛj¸À§ºÀÄzÁVzÀÄÝ (¸ÀtÚ ¤ÃgÁªÀj ªÀÄvÀÄÛ CAvÀdð® C©üªÀÈ¢Þ E¯ÁSÉgÀªÀgÀ ¥ÀvÀæ) ¤AiÀÄªÀiÁªÀ½UÀ¼À ¥ÀæPÁgÀ UÀjµÀÖ 2 ªÀµÀðUÀ¼ÀÄ ªÀiÁvÀæ UÀÄwÛUÉ CªÀ¢üAiÀÄ£ÀÄß «¸ÀÛj¸À®Ä CªÀPÁ±À«gÀÄªÀÅzÀjAzÀ, ªÀÄAqÀå f¯Éè ªÀÄzÀÆÝgÀÄ vÁ®ÆèQ£À PÉÆÃt¸Á¯É PÉgÉAiÀÄ UÀÄwÛUÉ CªÀ¢üAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¤AiÀÄªÀiÁ£ÀÄ¸ÁgÀ 2022-23 £ÉÃ ¸Á°UÉ ¥ÁªÀw ¸À»vÀ «¸ÀÛj¸À®Ä ªÀÄ£À«zÁgÀgÀÄ PÉÆÃjgÀÄvÁÛgÉ.

¶73

UÀÄwÛUÉ PÁAiÀÄð¤Ãw-2014 ºÁUÀÆ ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ wzÀÄÝ¥Àr DzÉÃ±À ¸ÀA ¥À¸ÀA«ÄÃ 45 «ÄÃEE 2014 ¢£ÁAPÀ: 27/08/2014 gÀ£ÀéAiÀÄ ªÀÄ£À«zÁgÀgÀÄ PÉÆÃjPÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¥ÀjUÀtÂ¹ ªÀÄAqÀå f¯Éè ªÀÄzÀÆÝgÀÄ vÁ®ÆèQ£À PÉÆÃt¸Á¯É PÉgÉAiÀÄ «ÄÃ£ÀÄ ¥Á±ÀÄªÁgÀÄ ºÀPÀÌ£ÀÄß ²æÃ ¸ÀÄ¤Ã¯ï PÀÄªÀiÁgï K.S S/o ²ªÀgÁªÀÄÄ K.L PÉÆÃt¸Á¯É, PÉÆ¥Àà ºÉÆÃ§½, ªÀÄzÀÆÝgÀÄ vÁ®ÆèPÀÄ, ªÀÄAqÀå f¯Éè gÀªÀjUÉ ¥ÁªÀw ¸À»vÀ 2022-23 £ÉÃ ¸Á°UÉ ªÀÄÄAzÀÄªÀgÉ¸À®Ä ¸ÀÆa¸À¯ÁVzÉ."

¶74

On receipt of the recommendation, the 3^rd

¶75

respondent seeks a clarification as to how the recommendation could have been made for extension despite the policy of

¶76

10 -

¶77

WP No. 3705 of 2023 C/W WP No. 3811 of 2023

¶78

fishing not permitting such extension. This is replied by the 4^th respondent. The reply also becomes necessary to be notice and is extracted herein for the purpose of quick reference:

¶79

" dgÀÆgÀÄ eÁÕ¥À£Á ¥ÀvÀæ

¶80

«µÀAiÀÄ: ªÀÄAqÀå f¯ÉèAiÀÄ ªÀÄzÀÆÝgÀÄ vÁ®ÆèQ£À PÉÆÃt¸Á¯É PÉgÉAiÀÄ «ÄÃ£ÀÄ¥Á±ÀÄªÁgÀÄ ºÀQÌ£À PÀÄjvÀÄ. G¯ÉèÃR: «ÄÃ£ÀÄUÁjPÉ G¥À ¤zÉÃð±ÀPÀgÀÄ, ªÀÄAqÀå gÀªÀgÀ ¥ÀvÀæ ¸ÀASÉå/ºÀUÀÄ¥À/15/2021-22 ¢£ÁAPÀ: 31.12.2022.

¶81

ªÉÄÃ®ÌAqÀ «µÀAiÀÄPÉÌ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀAvÉ, ªÀÄAqÀå f¯ÉèAiÀÄ ªÀÄzÀÆÝgÀÄ vÁ®ÆèQ£À PÉÆÃt¸Á¯É PÉgÉAiÀÄ «ÄÃ£ÀÄ¥Á±ÀÄªÁgÀÄ ºÀQÌ£À PÀÄjvÀAvÉ «ÄÃ£ÀÄUÁjPÉ G¥À ¤zÉÃð±ÀPÀgÀÄ, ªÀÄAqÀå gÀªÀgÀ G¯ÉèÃTvÀ ¥ÀvÀæzÀ°è£À «ªÀgÀuÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¥Àj²Ã°¸À¯ÁVzÉ.

¶82

²æÃ. ¸ÀÄ¤Ã¯ï PÀÄªÀiÁgï PÉ.J¸ï ©£ï ²ªÀgÁªÀÄÄ PÉ.J¯ï.PÉÆÃt¸Á¯É, PÉÆ¥Àà ºÉÆÃ§½, ªÀÄzÀÆÝgÀÄ vÁ®ÆèPÀÄ, ªÀÄAqÀå f¯Éè EªÀgÀÄ PÉÆÃt¸Á¯É PÉgÉAiÀÄ «ÄÃ£ÀÄ¥Á±ÀÄªÁgÀÄ ºÀPÀÌ£ÀÄß 2014-15£ÉÃ ¸Á°¤AzÀ 2018-19£ÉÃ ¸Á°£ÀªÀgÉUÉ 05 ªÀµÀðUÀ¼À CªÀ¢üUÉ mÉAqÀgÀÄ PÀA ºÀgÁdÄ ªÀÄÆ®PÀ ¥ÀqÉzÀÄPÉÆArzÀÄÝ, ¸ÀPÁðgÀªÀÅ DVAzÁÝUÉÎ ºÉÆgÀr¸À¯ÁzÀ §gÀUÁ®/«¸ÀÛgÀuÉ DzÉÃ±ÀUÀ¼À£ÀéAiÀÄ 2018-19£ÉÃ ¸Á°£À°è §gÀUÁ®zÀ £ÀµÀÖ ¥ÀjºÁgÀ «¸ÀÛgÀuÉ MAzÀÄ ªÀµÀð ¥ÀqÉ¢gÀÄvÁÛgÉ ºÁUÀÆ §gÀUÁ®zÀ ¥ÀæAiÀÄÄPÀÛ ¥sÀ¯Á£ÀÄ¨sÀ«AiÀÄÄ PÉÆÃ«qï-19gÀ ¥ÀjuÁªÀÄªÁV PÉÆÃt¸Á¯É PÉgÉAiÀÄ «ÄÃ£ÀÄ¥Á±ÀÄªÁgÀÄ ºÀPÀÌ£ÀÄß 3 ªÀµÀðUÀ¼À ºÉZÀÄÑªÀjAiÀiÁV «ÄÃ£ÀÄ¥Á±ÀÄªÁgÀÄ ºÀPÀÌ£ÀÄß 2021-22£ÉÃ ¸Á°£ÀªÀgÉUÉ C£ÀÄ¨sÀ«¹gÀÄvÁÛgÉ.

¶83

ªÀÄÄAzÀÄªÀgÉzÀÄ, 2021-22£ÉÃ ¸Á°£À°è PÉÆÃ«qï/ §gÀUÁ®zÀ £ÀµÀÖ ¥ÀjºÁgÀ «¸ÀÛgÀuÉ MAzÀÄ ªÀµÀð ¥ÀqÉ¢gÀÄªÀÅzÀjAzÀ ¥ÀÄ£À: CzÉÃ CªÀ¢üUÉ PÉgÉAiÀÄ°è PÁªÀÄUÁj PÉÊUÉÆArgÀÄªÀÅzÀPÉÌ «¸ÀÛj¸À®Ä CªÀPÁ±À EgÀÄªÀÅ¢®è. DzÀÄzÀjAzÀ E¯ÁSÁ UÀÄwÛUÉ PÁAiÀÄð¤Ãw-2014 gÀAvÉ 2022-23£ÉÃ ¸Á°UÉ ¤AiÀÄªÀiÁ

¶84

The Assistant Director of Fisheries was directed

¶85

then to take action strictly in terms of the policy. In terms of

¶86

the said direction, a notification comes to be issued by the Tender Inviting Authority/4^th respondent notifying the tank for leasing out fishing rights. The petitioner, who is the beneficiary of extension not once but twice cannot seek to contend that he

¶87

11 -

¶88

WP No. 3705 of 2023 C/W WP No. 3811 of 2023

¶89

should be permitted to fish despite the contract being awarded close to 7 years ago and him doing fishing activity for the last 7 years. The petitioner does not dispute that he is the beneficiary

¶90

of two extensions. The contention is that third extension is also granted to others and, therefore, the petitioner is also entitled to such extension. In the light of the said submission, it is necessary to notice the extension so granted in terms of the policy.

¶91

"wzÀÄÝ¥Àr DzÉÃ±À ¸ÀASÉå: ¥À¸ÀA«ÄÃ/125/«ÄÃEE/2013, ¢£ÁAPÀ:21-02-2014gÀ M¼À£ÁqÀÄ «ÄÃ£ÀÄUÁjPÁ PÁAiÀÄð¤Ãw-2014PÉÌ F PÉ¼ÀPÀAqÀAvÉ wzÀÄÝ¥Àr ªÀiÁqÀ¯ÁVzÉ. 1) PÀArPÉ-4(1)(D), C£ÀÄ§AzsÀ-4gÀ PÀArPÉ-(2) ªÀÄvÀÄÛ C£ÀÄ§AzsÀ-11gÀ PÀArPÉ-(2)gÀ°è UÀjµÀÖ 2 PÉgÉ CxÀªÁ UÀjµÀÖ 2 £À¢¨sÁUÀUÀ¼ÀÄ JAzÀÄ EzÀÄÝ, CzÀ£ÀÄß UÀjµÀÖ 3 PÉgÉ CxÀªÁ UÀjµÀÖ 3 £À¢¨sÁUÀ JAzÀÄ w¢Ý N¢PÉÆ¼ÀîvÀPÀÌzÀÄÝ. 2) PÀArPÉ-7C, PÀArPÉ-7(D), PÀArPÉ-7(E), C£ÀÄ§AzsÀ-4gÀ PÀArPÉ(7), C£ÀÄ§AzsÀ-5gÀ PÀArPÉ-(4), C£ÀÄ§AzsÀ-11gÀ PÀArPÉ-(4) ªÀÄvÀÄÛ C£ÀÄ§AzsÀ-14gÀ PÀArPÉ-(3)gÀ°è ¥Àæw ºÉPÉÖÃgïUÉ gÀÆ.500-00 gÀAvÉ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¥Àæw Q.«ÄÃ. GzÀÝzÀ £À¢ ¨sÁUÀPÉÌ gÀÆ.500-00 gÀAvÉ JAzÀÄ EzÀÄÝ, CzÀ£ÀÄß ¥Àæw ºÉPÉÖÃgïUÉ gÀÆ.300-00 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¥Àæw Q.«ÄÃ. GzÀÝzÀ £À¢ ¨sÁUÀPÉÌ gÀÆ.300-00 JAzÀÄ w¢Ý N¢PÉÆ¼ÀîvÀPÀÌzÀÄÝ. 3) PÀArPÉ-6 (C)£ÀÄß ºÉÆ¸ÀzÁV “CwªÀÈ¶Ö CxÀªÁ C£ÁªÀÈ¶Ö CxÀªÁ PÉgÉAiÀÄ fÃuÉÆÃðzÁÞgÀPÁÌV PÉgÉAiÀÄ ¤ÃgÀ£ÀÄß §¹zÀÄ PÁªÀÄUÁjAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ªÀiÁrzÀÝ°è ªÀiÁvÀæ «ÄÃ£ÀÄUÁgÀjUÉ £ÀµÀÖªÁzÀ UÀÄwÛUÉ CªÀ¢üUÉ ªÀiÁvÀæ (UÀjµÀÖ 2 ªÀµÀð) ¥ÁªÀw¸À»vÀªÁV UÀÄwÛUÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ªÀÄÄAzÀÄªÀj¸ÀÄªÀÅzÀÄ” JAzÀÄ ¸ÉÃj¸ÀÄªÀÅzÀÄ."

¶92

A Government order is issued on 27.08.2014, which

¶93

results in extension of lease of few lakes. Clause (3) of the said Government order was specific that where the lake has been the subject matter of renovation for a period of two years

¶94

12 -

¶95

WP No. 3705 of 2023 C/W WP No. 3811 of 2023

¶96

and during the said period of renovation the fishermen of the society that was granted fishing rights were not in a position to fish and, therefore, extension was granted in such cases. Though there is a recommendation in the case of the petitioner contending that renovation work of the lake was in progress at sometime during 2021, the petitioner has not been granted extension. It cannot be that merely because the State has illegally granted extension to others, the petitioner would be entitled to a direction at the hands of this Court to commit the same illegality that is done to other by the State, as it would become acceptance of negative equality in law. Two wrongs can never make a right and such wrongs cannot be perpetrated by a mandamus from the hands of this Court.

¶97

Finding no illegality in the issuance of tender notification, the petition stands rejected.

¶98

IN WRIT PETITION NO.3705 OF 2023 :

¶99

Except the period of commencement of lease and the period of extension, there is no difference either in the contention or in the recommendation or any other fact that is narrated in Writ Petition No.3811 of 2023. The petitioner in the

¶100

13 -

¶101

WP No. 3705 of 2023 C/W WP No. 3811 of 2023

¶102

subject writ petition has also been a beneficiary of extension. There is no recommendation in the case of the petitioner in the subject petition, as is available in the other case. Therefore,

¶103

finding no merit, the subject petition stands rejected for the very reasons rendered in Writ Petition No.3811 of 2023.

¶104

Sd/JUDGE

¶105

JY CT: THK

Sri. Sunil Kumar K.S., v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Sunil Kumar K.S., v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri.Suna Miandad Vs the State of Karnataka

State Bank of India Vs M/S Akshayam Sands and Industries

Shri Kumara Swamy a Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. K. C Devaraj, Vs the State of Karnataka

Mr. M.H. Shiva Prasad Vs the Authorized Officer and Chief Manager

M Govinda Bhat, Vs the Deputy Commissioner