Dismissed

Gramavelicham v. the District Collector

Kerala HC19 Nov 2019WP(C)/15486/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala examined whether an association of agriculturists possessed locus standi to seek directions prohibiting auction of fishing rights before the paddy harvest season. The court found the owners were not members and dismissed the writ as not maintainable.

What did the court decide?

Appropriate directions to prohibit auction of fishing operation before November are dismissed for lack of maintainability.

Gramavelicham Vs the District Collector — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2019 / 28TH KARTHIKA, 1941

¶5

WP(C).No.15486 OF 2019(I)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

GRAMAVELICHAM

¶8

REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY SAJEEVAN K.L. AGED 49 YEARS, S/O. LAKSHMANAN, HAVING ITS OFFICE AT GRAMAVELICHAM, MANNALITHARATHIL, KAATTUPURAM, KANDAKKADAVU KOCHI-8, PINCODE 682 008.

¶9

BY ADV. SMT.D.LEEMA ROSY

¶10

RESPONDENTS:

¶11

1 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR ERNAKULAM CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD, KOCHI 30, PINCODE 682 030.

¶12

2 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, FORT KOCHI, PINCODE 682 008

¶13

3 DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF FISHERIES, OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF FISHERIES (ZONAL), SALIM ALI ROAD, ERNAKULAM PINCODE 682 018.

¶14

4 THE VILLAGE OFFICER, VILLAGE OFFICE, KUMBALANGHI POST OFFICE, KUMBALANGHI, KOCHI-7, 682 007.

¶15

5 AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, AGRICULTURAL OFFICE,KANNAMALI POST OFFICE, KANNAMALI KOCHI-8, PINCODE 682 008

¶16

6 KANDAKKADAVU PADASEKARAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY MR. PREMLAL, KANDAKKADAVU, KOCHI -8, PINCODE 682 008.

¶17

7 ADDL.R7.A.S.BOBAN S/O.SIMON, AGED 59 YEARS, ARAKKAL HOUSE, KANDAKADAVU, ANDIKADAVU P.O., COCHIN-8.

¶18

WPC No.15486 of 2019

¶19

¶20

8 ADDL.R8. K.J.ANTOJI, S/O.JOB KALANTHUNGAL, AGED 67 YEARS, KALANTHUNGAL HOUSE, SOUTH CHELLANAM, SOUTH CHELLANAM P.O., COCHIN - 8. IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 3/10/19 IN I.A.3/19 IN WP(C). R1 TO R5 BY ADV.SMT.PRINCY XAVIER, GOVERNMENT PLEADER R6 BY ADV. SRI.S.SUJIN R7 BY ADV. N.RAGHURAJ R7 BY ADV. SHRI.ARJUN GOPAL P.

¶21

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19.11.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

WP(C).No.15486 OF 2019(I)

¶23

¶24

P.B.SURESH KUMAR, J.

¶25

W.P.(C) No.15486 of 2019

¶26

Dated this the 19^th day of November, 2019.

¶27

J U D G M E N T

¶28

The petitioner is stated to be an association of agriculturists formed for preservation of agricultural and farming activities. The sixth respondent is an association of the owners of a padasekharam where paddy cultivation and fishing operation are carried on intermittently. It is alleged that in terms of the accepted norms, fishing operation is permissible in the padasekharam only from 15^th November to 30^th April of the succeeding year. It is alleged that the sixth respondent would auction the right to carry on fishing operation every year much before 15^th November and as a result of the same, the contractor to whom the right to carry on fishing operation is auctioned would start sowing fish seeds without waiting for the end of the paddy harvest and would also open the sluice intended for regulation of flow of water for both the activities and let in salt water in the padasekharam which would damage the standing crops. The petitioner, therefore, seeks appropriate directions to the first respondent to issue orders prohibiting the sixth respondent from

¶29

WP(C).No.15486 OF 2019(I)

¶30

¶31

conducting auction for fishing operation before the month of November every year.

¶32

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader as also the learned counsel for the contesting respondents.

¶33

In the absence of any pleading in the writ petition as to whether the owners of the paddy fields in the padasekharam in respect of which relief is sought in the writ petition are members of the petitioner association, the learned counsel for the petitioner was asked to clarify that aspect and the learned counsel conceded that the owners of the paddy fields in the padasekharam have nothing to do with the petitioner association. It was, however, pointed out by the learned counsel that lessees of the owners of the padasekharam who are actually carrying on the paddy cultivation in the padasekharam during the permissible period are members of the petitioner association.

¶34

If owners of the paddy fields in the padasekharam have nothing to do with the petitioner association, I do not think that the petitioner association has the locus standi to institute this writ petition for appropriate directions as to the paddy cultivation in the padasekharam. Even assuming that some of the lessees of paddy fields in the padasekharam who are actually carrying on paddy

¶35

WP(C).No.15486 OF 2019(I)

¶36

¶37

cultivation are members of the petitioner association, they cannot seek the relief sought for in the writ petition as against the sixth respondent which takes care of the interest of the owners of the paddy fields.

¶38

The writ petition, in the circumstances, is dismissed as not

maintainable.

Sd/-

P.B.SURESH KUMAR

JUDGE

WP(C).No.15486 OF 2019(I)

¶45

¶46

APPENDIX

¶47

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶48

EXHIBIT P1	THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION MADE TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 8/4/2019
EXHIBIT P2	THE TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT FOR THE RECEIPT OF THE REPRESENTATION MADE TO 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P3	THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION MADE TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 8/4/2019
EXHIBIT P3(A)	TRUE COPY OF THE POSTAL RECEIPT OF THE REPRESENTATION MADE TO 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P4	THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION MADE TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 8/4/2019
EXHIBIT P4 A	THE TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT FOR THE RECEIPT OF THE REPRESENTATION MADE TO 3RD RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P5	THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION MADE TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 8/4/2019
EXHIBIT P5 A	THE TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT FOR THE RECEIPT OF THE REPRESENTATION MADE TO 4TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P6	THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION MADE TO THE 5TH RESPONDENT DATED 8/4/2019
EXHIBIT P6 A	THE TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT FOR THE RECEIPT OF THE REPRESENTATION MADE TO 5TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P7	THE TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE OF GENERAL BODY MEETING HELD FOR THE YEAR 2017-2018
EXHIBIT P8	THE TRUE COPY OF THE WRIT PETITION UMBERED AS WP O. 24449/2018
EXHIBIT P9	THE TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT FIELD BY THE RESPONDENT PADASEKARAM IN WPC NO 24449/2018
EXHIBIT P10	THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT PASSED BY THIS HONBLE COURT IN WPC NO. 24449/2018

¶49

WP(C).No.15486 OF 2019(I)

¶50

¶51

	DATED 24/9/2018
EXHIBIT P11	THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR ON PROMOTING POKKALI PADDY CULTIVATION, DATED 15/3/2018
EXHIBIT P12	THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, DATED 13/12/2018
EXHIBIT P13	THE TRUE COPIES OF PHOTOGRAPH SHOWING THE BOGUS CONCERTED BUND AND ARTIFICIAL FLOOD AFFECTED AREA OF KANDAKKADAVU.
EXHIBIT P14	THE PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING THE INAUGURAL CEREMONY AND THE AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITIES CONDUCTED BY THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P15	THE TRUE COPY OF THE BOOKLET ANNOUNCING THE GENERAL BODY MEETING SCHEDULED ON 20/7/2019
EXHIBIT P16	TRUE COPY OF THE INFORMATION RECEIVED UNDER RTI AS TO THE INFORMATION ABOUT OBTAINING OF THE LICENCE.
EXHIBIT P17	THE TRUE COPY OF THE INFORMATION RECEIVED UNDER RTI AS TO THE LICENCE DETAILS OF 6TH RESPONDENT AND OTHER PADASEKHARAM
EXHIBIT P18	THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION MADE BEFORE THE 5TH RESPONDENT ON 20.08.2019.
EXHIBIT P19	THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION MADE BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 03.09.2019.
EXHIBIT P20	THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION MADE BEFORE THE 5TH RESPONDENT DATED 03.09.2019.
EXHIBIT P21	THE TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT ALONG WITH THE CHELLANAM PANCHAYAT.

¶52

//TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE

Gramavelicham v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gramavelicham v. the District Collector

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

Annie John Vs the State of Kerala

Thomas K.Paul, Vs Kerala Water Authority

Rukkiya M.A Vs Asst. Executive Engineer

Vimala a.K, Vs State of Kerala

Sree Kochu Malayalapuzha Devi Kshethra Samrakshna Samithy Vs the District Collector

Maruvakkad Padasekhara Karshaka Union Vs District Collector