Davanagere Taluk Fish Sales Production and Processing Vs the State of Karnataka

¶1

1 - NC: 2025:KHC:37857 WP No. 9975 of 2020

¶2

HC-KAR

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 9975 OF 2020 (CS-RES)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

DAVANAGERE TALUK FISH SALES, PRODUCTION AND PROCESSING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED AVARAGERE 30^TH WARD DAVANAGERE TALUK AND DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY REGISTERED UNDER CO-OP SOCIETIES ACT, 1959

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. HAREESH BHANDARY T., ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO DEPARTMENT OF FISHERIES AND ANIMAL HUSBANDARY VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560001

¶13

THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF FISHERIES (GRADE-II) SRI GURU RENUKA HOTEL, 2^ND FLOOR, P.J. EXTENSION, DAVANAGERE TALUK AND DIST.-577 003

¶14

THE SENIOR ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF FISHERIES SRI GURU RENUKA HOTEL, 2^ND FLOOR, P.J. EXTENSION, DAVANAGERE TALUK AND DISTRICT-577 003

¶15

THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF FISHERIES SHIVAMOGGA B.H. ROAD, SHIVAMOGGA-577201

¶16

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:37857 WP No. 9975 of 2020

¶17

HC-KAR

¶18

THE DIRECTOR OF FISHERIES DEPARTMENT OF FISHERIES M.S. BUILDING BENGALURU-560001

¶19

THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR, DISTRICT COMMISSIONER'S OFFICE BUILDING, MINI VIDHANASOUDHA, HARIHARA ROAD, DAVANAGERE TQ AND DISTRICT-577001

¶20

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. S.R.KHAMROZ KHAN, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)

¶21

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE SECOND AND THIRD RESPONDENTS NOT TO INSIST UPON FEASIBLE REPORT IN RESPECT OF THE PETITIONER'S SOCIETY FOR THE PURPOSE OF PARTICIPATING IN THE DIRECT LEASE HOLD FISHING RIGHTS IN DAVANAGERE TALUK AND ALSO TO DECLARE THAT THE PETITIONER'S SOCIETY WHICH HAS BEEN REGISTERED AS A FISHING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY UNDER THE CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES ACT, 1959 IS ELIGIBLE TO PARTICIPATE IN ALL THE DIRECT LEASE HOLD RIGHT CALLED FOR BY THE 2^ND RESPONDENT FOR DIRECT LEASE OF FISHING RIGHTS IN DAVANAGERE DISTRICT AND ETC.

¶22

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶23

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

¶24

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:37857 WP No. 9975 of 2020

¶25

HC-KAR

¶26

ORAL ORDER

¶27

The petitioner has sought for a writ in the nature of mandamus to direct the respondent Nos.2 and 3 not to insist upon feasibility report for the purpose of the petitioner participating in direct lease of fishing rights in Davangere district and also to declare that the petitioner’s society which has been registered as a fishermen co-operative society under the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 is eligible to participate in all direct lease rights called for by the respondent No.2 for direct lease of fishing rights in Davangere district. He has also sought for a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other writ to quash the remarks in the order dated 23.09.2019 passed by the respondent No.4.

¶28

When this petition was listed before this Court for preliminary hearing in ‘B’ group, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that an appeal is pending consideration before the director of fisheries and a suitable direction be issued to direct the respondent No.5 - director of fisheries to dispose off the appeal as expeditiously as possible.

¶29

4 -

¶30

NC: 2025:KHC:37857 WP No. 9975 of 2020

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

(i) The petitioner contends that it was earlier known as ‘Besthara Alemari Janangadavara Vividodesha Sahakari Sanga Niyamitha’ and was registered on 03.11.2009. Subsequently in the year 2013, the general body proposed to amend its bye-laws including its objects and to change the name of the society. Accordingly, after a resolution was passed in the general body, an application was filed on 17.11.2013 for change of the name of the petitioner.

¶33

(ii) The State Government had issued a notification dated 26.08.2009 to direct the authorities of the department of co-operation to obtain a feasibility certificate from the department of fisheries before registering a fisherman cooperative society or before registration of amendment to bye-laws of such a society. The petitioner contends that as per the said notification dated 26.08.2009, within 07 days of such registration of co-operative society, the feasibility report had to be furnished.

¶34

(iii) The petitioner contends that the respondent No.6 considered the application filed by the petitioner dated 17.11.2013 for change of name and amendment of bye-laws

¶35

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:37857 WP No. 9975 of 2020

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

sought for a feasibility report from the respondent No.2 vide its letter dated 12.12.2013. The petitioner pursued the issue vide its letter dated 21.12.2013 for furnishing feasibility report. In spite of the same, the respondent No.2 failed to furnish feasibility report. On 27.12.2013, the application filed by the petitioner for amendment of its bye-laws and for change of its name was granted vide order dated 27.12.2013. Subsequent to the amendment, the erstwhile multipurpose co-operative society was converted into a fisherman co-operative society. The petitioner claims that it is a taluk level society and its members are from the fishermen community who are residing within the limits of Davangere.

¶38

(iv) It is contended that the respondent No.2 had invited tender for awarding fishing rights by direct lease in Gopanal lake of Davangere district on 02.05.2016. The petitioner who was qualified in all respects applied for direct lease vide its application dated 31.05.2016 under ‘Sakala’. After considering the application, the respondent No.2 found that the documents furnished by the petitioners were all in accordance with law but submitted a report to the respondent No.3 on 15.06.2016 stating that the petitioner did not obtain a

¶39

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:37857 WP No. 9975 of 2020

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

feasibility report from the fisheries department at the time of its registration and therefore it was not eligible for a direct lease. The petitioner challenged the same before the respondent No.4 on 27.11.2018. Since the respondent No.4 failed to consider the appeal within the prescribed time, the petitioner filed second appeal before the respondent No.5 on 23.09.2019. The respondent No.4 furnished parawise remarks in respect of the appeal filed by the petitioner. In the said parawise remarks, it was mentioned that “it was open for the members of the petitioner’s society to become members of some other fishing co-operative societies and thereafterwards participate in the direct lease. ” The petitioner contends that it was registered as a fishermen cooperative society in accordance with law and though, the feasibility certificate was sought by the department of cooperation, the same was not granted by the fisheries department and therefore, the respondent No.6 was constrained to register the amended byelaws as well as permitted to change the name of the petitioner. He therefore contends that once the amendment of the byelaws and the name of the society is permitted to be changed, the society has become a full fledged fishermen cooperative

¶42

7 -

¶43

NC: 2025:KHC:37857 WP No. 9975 of 2020

¶44

HC-KAR

¶45

society and hence, it is entitled to participate in tender for direct lease of fishing rights.

¶46

The learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the above contentions and submitted that the petitioner is already registered as a fishermen co-operative society and therefore there is no difficulty to allow the petitioner to participate in tender for direct lease. He contends that the respondent No.5 is bound to consider the case of the petitioner, since it did not do so, the petitioner is compelled to approach this Court. He therefore prays that a direction be issued to the respondent No.4 to consider and dispose off the appeal as expeditiously as possible.

¶47

The learned Additional Government Advocate on the other hand submitted that the petitioner was an erstwhile 'multi purpose co-operative society' which was later converted as a "fishermen cooperative society". Having regard to the circular dated 26.08.2009 issued by the State Government it was incumbent upon the petitioner to obtain a feasibility certificate from the department of fisheries. He contends that there cannot be more than one fishermen cooperative society, unless

¶48

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:37857 WP No. 9975 of 2020

¶49

HC-KAR

¶50

there is ample evidence justifying having more than one society. Thus, he contends that this was a fundamental document that was required for the petitioner to participate in the tender for direct lease.

¶51

I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondents.

¶52

The question whether the petitioner could participate in the tender for direct lease invited by the State Government, without obtaining feasibility certificate is at large before the respondent No.5. Therefore, it is not prudent for this Court to decide the question whether the petitioner can be permitted to participate in the tender relating to direct lease of feasibility rights.

¶53

Be that as it may, since the appeal before the director of fisheries is pending consideration from a long time, it is appropriate to direct the respondent No.5 to dispose off the appeal as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

¶54

9 -

¶55

NC: 2025:KHC:37857 WP No. 9975 of 2020

¶56

HC-KAR

¶57

In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed in part . The respondent No.5 is directed to decide the appeal

¶58

before him within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

¶59

It is open for the petitioner to take all contentions before the respondent No.5 and also establish that objections raised by the respondent No.4 do not merit consideration.

¶60

Sd/(R. NATARAJ) JUDGE

¶61

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 35

¶62

HJ

Davanagere Taluk Fish Sales Production and Processing v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Davanagere Taluk Fish Sales Production and Processing v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri. Mauneshwar Vs the State of Karnataka

Sunandamma Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Mahadevu Vs State of Karnataka

Nagaraju a M Vs State of Karnataka

Nataraj S L Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. Praveen Kumar B N Vs the State of Karnataka