Allowed

Muhammed Haneefa v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC2 Feb 2021WP(C)/1971/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The writ petition challenged an adjudication order imposing a fine without affording an opportunity of hearing. The court held the order violated natural justice and Rule 21 of the Kerala Marine Fishing Regulation Rules, and set it aside.

What did the court decide?

Adjucation order set aside; liberty to pass fresh orders within one month; order releasing the boat on getting a simple bond within one week.

Muhammed Haneefa Vs the State of Kerala — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

WP(C).No.1971 OF 2021(V)

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.V.ASHA

¶6

TUESDAY, THE 02ND DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 13TH MAGHA,1942

¶7

WP(C).No.1971 OF 2021(V)

¶8

PETITIONER/S:

¶9

MUHAMMED HANEEFA AGED 42 YEARS

¶10

VALAPPIL HOUSE, F H ROAD, NARANGAPARAMBU, BEYPORE P O, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN-673015.

¶11

BY ADV. SHRI.V.PREMCHAND

¶12

RESPONDENT/S:

¶13

1 THE STATE OF KERALA

¶14

REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695001.

¶15

2 THE SECRETARY

¶16

DEPARTMENT OF FISHERIES, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA,

¶17

SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695001.

¶18

3 THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF FISHERIES(ADJUDICATING OFFICER), WEST HILL P O, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN-673005.

¶19

4 THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF FISHERIES FISHERIES STATIION, BEYPORE, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN-673015.

¶20

5 THE INSPECTOR OF GUARD MARINE ENFORCEMENT WING, BEYPORE, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN-673015.

¶21

OTHER PRESENT:

¶22

SMT.PRINCY XAVIER, GP

¶23

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02.02.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶24

WP(C).No.1971 OF 2021(V)

¶25

¶26

JUDGMENT

¶27

Dated this the 2^nd day of February 2021

¶28

The petitioner's fishing boat was seized on 12.01.2021 on the allegation that he indulged in fishing in territorial waters that too without license. In order to release the boat he was asked to remit a sum of Rs.1,25,000/- fixing the same as the sale proceeds of the fish which was inside the boat. It is further stated that on 18.01.2021 the petitioner was summoned to the office of the 3^rd respondent as per Ext. P5 notice stating that there would be a hearing at 1 p.m. and the petitioner has to appear producing the necessary documents. The petitioner submits that he appeared before the 3^rd respondent with the available documents. It is stated that on the basis of a report submitted by the 5^th respondent, the 3^rd respondent passed orders on adjudication directing the petitioner to remit a sum of Rs. 2.5 lakhs. The petitioner points out that such order imposing Rs. 2.5 lakhs on him

¶29

WP(C).No.1971 OF 2021(V)

¶30

¶31

without furnishing him the report stated to have been submitted by the 5^th respondent and without giving him an opportunity to submit an objection on that, is in violation of the principles of natural justice as well as the provisions contained in Rule 21 of Kerala Marine Fishing Regulation Rules, which mandates adjudicating officer to issue notice and to enable filing of objections before passing orders on adcjudication . Along with I.A. No.1 of 2021, the petitioner has produced Ext. P6 order which was passed on to 18.01.2021 itself, in which the petitioner is found to have committed offences under Section 6, 7 and 4(1)(a) of Kerala Marine Fishing Regulation Act, 1980 and is directed to remit a sum of Rs. 2.5 lakhs in tune with Section 17(1)(a) (IX) of the said Act. Petitioner points out that though the vessel was released to him on 12.01.2021 he was not permitted to use the same and the vessel remained anchored in Beypore river since

¶32

12.01.2021. Now in order to release the same he is asked to remit Rs.2.5 lakhs.

¶33

The learned Government Pleader submits that the

¶34

petitioner was not having licence at the relevant time

¶35

¶36

WP(C).No.1971 OF 2021(V)

¶37

and he renewed the licence only subsequent to the impounding of the vessel. It is also stated that the adjudicating officer has passed ordes in accordance with law.

¶38

However, on a perusal of Ext. P6 order as well as Ext. P5 notice it would appear that the petitioner is not dealt with in accordance with law, when the entire proceedings on adjudication commencing from the notice issued on 18.01.2021 and culminating on the same day are held in violation of the principles of natural justice and in violation of Rule 21 without furnishing a copy of the report referred to in Ext.P6 order to

¶39

petitioner. Petitioner is entitled to be afforded an effective opportunity to defend.

¶40

Therefore Ext.P6 order shall stand set aside with liberty to the 5^th respondent to proceed in accordance with law and to pass fresh orders within one month. Petitioner would be free to raise all his contentions. The 3^rd respondent shall in the meanwhile issue orders releasing the vehicle to the petitioner on getting a simple bond executed by the petitioner for producing the same for adjudication, in view of the

¶41

WP(C).No.1971 OF 2021(V)

¶42

fact that already a sum of Rs.1,25,000/- is remitted with the respondent. This shall be done within one week.

¶43

The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly.

Sd/-

P.V.ASHA

JUDGE

rtr

WP(C).No.1971 OF 2021(V)

¶49

¶50

APPENDIX

¶51

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶52

EXHIBIT P1	TRUE DATED	COPY 08/1	OF 0/20	THE 18.	CERTIFICATE OF LINCENCE
EXHIBIT P2	TRUE DATED OF IN	COPY 02/ DIA.	OF 11/2	THE 017	CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRY ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT
EXHIBIT P3	TRUE ISSUE FEE.	COPY D BY	OF THE	THE 4TH	RECEIPT DATED 19/01/2021M RESPONDENT TOWARDS PERMIT
EXHIBIT P4	TRUE ISSUE	COPY D BY	OF THE	THE 4TH	RECEIPT DATED 13/01/2021 RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P5	TRUE ISSUE	COPY D BY	OF THE	THE 3RD	NOTICE DATED 18/01/2021 RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P6	TRUE PASSE	COPY D BY	OF THE	THE 3RD	ORDER DATED 18/01/2021 RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P7	TRUE 28/11 BOAT	CO /2020 OPERA	PY SU TORS	OF BMITT ASS	REPRESENTATION DATED ED BY ALL KERALA FISHING OCIATION

Muhammed Haneefa v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Muhammed Haneefa 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

Jyothi Mary Jacob Vs the Tahasildar

K. v. Anilkumar Vs the General Manager, Southern Railway Head Quarters Office

Anil Kumar C. Vs State of Kerala

Northstone Builders and Developers Pvt. Ltd. Vs South Indian Bank

Kumaran M.V Vs the District Police Chief

Sajini Manoj Vs State of Kerala