Allowed

Madhu S v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC7 Sept 2018WP(C)/5773/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought permission to harvest African Cat Fish farmed before a government prohibition order, relying on a misunderstanding of the species and a pledge to cease such farming. Court allowed harvest of unripe fish pending destruction of remainder.

What did the court decide?

Permission granted to petitioner to harvest fish farmed prior to the notification; fish not ripe for harvest to be destroyed; undertaking to cease future farming of prohibited species.

Madhu S Vs the 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 7TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2018 / 16TH BHADRA, 1940

¶5

WP(C).No. 5773 of 2018

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

MADHU S

¶8

S/O.LATE SUKUMARAN, AGED 45 YEARS,RESIDING AT MANNAMPALLAM KALAM,NENMENI PO, KOLLENGODE, PALAKKAD 678506

¶9

BY ADV. SRI. T.C. SURESH MENON

¶10

RESPONDENTS:

¶11

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

¶12

2 THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF FISHERIES MALAMPUZHA, PALAKKAD 678651

¶13

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

¶14

BY ADV.B.VINOD, GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 3.08.2018, THE COURT ON 07.09.2018 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

W.P.(C).No.5773/18

JUDGMENT

1.By virtue of Ext.P2 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.

¶20

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.

¶21

W.P.(C).No.5773/18

¶22

¶23

3.Ext.P2 is a notification issued by the Government under

¶24

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

¶25

“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.”

¶26

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.P2 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

¶27

W.P.(C).No.5773/18

¶28

¶29

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.

¶30

The writ petition is ordered accordingly.

¶31

sd/- Anu Sivaraman, Judge

W.P.(C).No.5773/18

APPENDIX

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶37

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER SENT BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER DATED 11/1/2018

¶38

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF G.O.(P) NO.13/2017/F AND P ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 15/6/2017

¶39

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT RENDERED IN WP(C) NO.26025/2017 ON THE FILE OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT DATED 31/8/2017

¶40

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:

¶41

EXHIBIT R1 NIL EXHIBIT R2 NIL

¶42

EXHIBIT R3 A INSPECTION REPORT DATED 11/1/2018

¶43

TRUE COPY

¶44

PS TO JUDGE

Madhu S v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Madhu S v. the 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

C.Sanilkumar Vs State of Kerala

Shahila Vs Tahsildar (Lr)

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