Allowed

C.Sanilkumar v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC7 Sept 2018WP(C)/1226/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court permitted the petitioner an aquaculture farmer to harvest African Cat Fish farmed before a government prohibition order came into effect, subject to a written undertaking never to farm that species again and destruction of unripe catch.

What did the court decide?

Permission granted to harvest fish farmed before the prohibition notification, subject to a written undertaking not to farm prohibited species in the future and the destruction of fish not ripe for ha

C.Sanilkumar Vs State of Kerala — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 07TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2018 / 16TH BHADRA, 1940

¶5

WP(C).No. 1226 of 2018

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

C.SANILKUMAR AGED 42 YEARS S/O SUDHAKARAN, MEENIKOTTUKULAM,KIZHAKKEKETHARA, KOLLENGODE P.O,PALAKKAD -678 506.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI. S.M. PREM

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,DEPARTMENT OF FISHERIES & PORTS,SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM -695001.

¶11

2 DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF FISHERIES MALAMPUZHA, PALAKKAD-678651.

¶12

3 ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF FISHERIES OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF FISHERIES,MALAMPUZHA, PALAKKAD -678651.

¶13

4 THE SECRETARY KOLLENGODE GRAMA PANCHAYAT,KOLLENGODE P.O, PALAKKAD-678506.

¶14

5 THE VILLAGE OFFICER KOLLENGODE VILLAGE,KOLLENGODE P.O, PALAKKAD -678506.

¶15

6 SUJITHRAN S/O.MURUGANKUTTY, EDACHIRA HOUSE, NENMENI P.O., KOLLENGODE, PALAKKAD - 678 506.

¶16

BY ADV. GOVERNMENT PLEADER VINITHA B

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 3.8.2018, THE COURT ON 07.09.2018 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

W.P.(C).No.1226/18

JUDGMENT

1.By virtue of Ext.P3 notification issued by the Government in exercise of the power under Section 24 of the Kerala Inland Fisheries and Aquaculture Act, 2010 (the Act), farming of African Cat Fish is prohibited. The petitioner is a person engaged in Aquaculture and Fishery related activities in private inland water bodies. It is stated by the petitioner in the writ petition that he had purchased the spawn of fish believing them to be Indian Magur. But the respondents are interfering with his farming activities on the ground that he is farming the prohibited fish. Appropriate reliefs are sought in the writ petition on that basis.

¶22

2.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the farming of the prohibited species was on account of their inability to identify correctly the prohibited species and that they do not propose to continue the farming of the said species any more. The limited prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, in the circumstances, is only for permission to harvest the fish from his farm.

¶23

W.P.(C).No.1226/18

¶24

¶25

3.Ext.P3 is a notification issued by the Government under

¶26

Section 24 of the Act. Section 24 of the Act reads thus:

¶27

“24. Power of the Government to restrict the entrance of special varieties of fish.- The Government may, by notification in the Gazette, restrict, prohibit or regulate the entrance of any local or other extraordinary species of fishes having life or fish seeds which is suspected as likely to cause any damage to the existing fishery wealth or to cause any epidemic disease to the existing species of fishes or harmful to the environment.”

¶28

4.The counter affidavit filed by the third respondent indicates that the prohibition of the farming of African Cat Fish is a measure to protect the environment. Contentions are also raised by the parties regarding the fitness of the species for human consumption. In the circumstances, I am of the opinion that the steps taken by the respondents to prevent the farming and harvest of the prohibited species cannot be found fault with. However, in view of the contention that the farming had been started before Ext.P3 came into effect and in the light of the undertaking given by the petitioner that he will not farm the said species any more, I deem it appropriate to permit the

¶29

W.P.(C).No.1226/18

¶30

¶31

petitioner to harvest the fish farmed by the petitioner. It is made clear that the fish which are not ripe for harvest will be destroyed and the petitioner will submit a written undertaking before the respondents that farming of prohibited species will not be undertaken in future.

¶32

The writ petition is ordered accordingly.

¶33

Sd/- Anu Sivaraman, Judge

W.P.(C).No.1226/18

APPENDIX

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶39

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF NOTICE DATED 23/5/2017 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF REPLY DATED 25/5/2017 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 5TH RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF G.O(P) NO. 13/2017/F&P DATED 15/6/2017 WHICH WAS PUBLISHED IN THE KERALA GAZETTE EXTRAORDINARY NO. 1327/6/2017

¶40

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE EXTRACT FROM THE AQUACULTURE ASIA MAGAZINE VOLUME XIV NO.3, JULY -SEPTEMBER-2009 ON THE ADVANTAGES OF NATIV CATFISH CULTRUE AND TECHNOLOGY PACKAGE FOR FISH FARMERS.

¶41

EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE BILL DATED 5/5/2017 ISSUED FROM HATCHERY TO THE PETITIONER ON PURCHASE OF INDIAN MAGUR AND PANGASIUS SEEDS.

¶42

EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 31/8/2017 IN WPC NO. 26025 OF 2017.

¶43

True Copy

¶44

PS to Judge

C.Sanilkumar v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C.Sanilkumar v. State of Kerala

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

M/S. Marikar Engineers Private Limited, Trivandrum Vs General Manager, District Industries Centre, Thiruvananthapuram

Eldhose K.G. Vs Kerala Water Authority

Eldhose.K.G Vs Kerala Water Authority

Shahila Vs Tahsildar (Lr)

Madhu S Vs the State of Kerala

Nithin Sankar Vs the Chief Engineer, Public Works Department (Roads and Bridges)