Partly allowed

Muhammed Nisham K P , v. the Principal Secretary

Kerala HC1 Dec 2023WP(C)/40271/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners, owners of fishing boats taken into custody for alleged violations of the Kerala Marine Fishing Regulation Act, 1980, challenged the alleged inaction by the adjudicating officer and status of their vessels in pending inquiries. The court directed the competent authority to hear the petitioners' objections and issue final orders within two months, directing release of one vessel on a se

What did the court decide?

Directed competent authority to release one vessel on appropriate bond pending inquiry and to hear all petitioners under Rule 21 and report within two months.

Muhammed Nisham K P , Vs the Principal Secretary — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF DECEMBER 2023 / 10TH AGRAHAYANA, 1945
WP(C) NO. 39584 OF 2023

¶5

PETITIONER:

¶6

LUKMON C.P ,
AGED 43 YEARS
S/O UMMAR, CHERACHANPURATH, BEYPORE P.O, MALAPPURAM
DISTRICT,, PIN - 673015
BY ADVS.
V.PREMCHAND
HALIYA T.P.
MAHADEV M.J.

¶7

RESPONDENTS:

¶8

1 THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF FISHERIES, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,, PIN - 695001

¶9

2 THE DIRECTOR OF FISHERIES DEPARTMENT OF FISHERIES, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,, PIN - 695001

¶10

3 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT,, PIN - 676519

¶11

4 THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF FISHERIES (ADJUDICATING OFFICER), PONNANI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT,, PIN - 679583

¶12

5 THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF FISHERIES, FISHERIES STATION, PONNANI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT,, PIN - 679583

¶13

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
01.12.2023, ALONG WITH WP(C).40271/2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

WP(C) NOS.39584 & 40271 OF 2023

¶15

¶16

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶17

PRESENT

¶18

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶19

FRIDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF DECEMBER 2023 / 10TH AGRAHAYANA, 1945
WP(C) NO. 40271 OF 2023

¶20

PETITIONER:

¶21

MUHAMMED NISHAM K P ,
AGED 45 YEARS
S/O KOYAMON , KUNNATH PARAMBU, BEYPORE P.O, KOZHIKODE
DISTRICT,, PIN - 673015
BY ADVS.
V.PREMCHAND
HALIYA T.P.
MAHADEV M.J.

¶22

RESPONDENTS:

¶23

1THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF FISHERIES, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,, PIN - 695001
2THE DIRECTOR OF FISHERIES
DEPARTMENT OF FISHERIES,GOVERNMENT OF KERALA,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,, PIN - 695001
3THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
CIVIL STATION, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT,, PIN - 673001
4THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF FISHERIES (ADJUDICATING OFFICER),
WEST HILL P O, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT,, PIN - 673005
5THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF FISHERIES,
FISHERIES STATION,BEYPORE, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT., PIN -
673015
GP- Sri. Sunil K Kuriakose
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
01.12.2023, ALONG WITH WP(C).39584/2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶24

WP(C) NOS.39584 & 40271 OF 2023

¶25

¶26

JUDGMENT

¶27

The petitioners in these two cases - which

¶28

have been heard together - are owners of fishing
boats, which were taken into custody by the
competent Authorities, on the allegation that
they have violated Section 4 of the Kerala
Marine Fishing Regulation Act, 1980 (“Act” for
short).

¶29

2.The petitioners assert that they have

¶30

not committed any violation as alleged and that
they have been put to great detriment because,
even though Rule 21 of the Kerala Marine Fishing
Regulation Rule, 2018 (‘Rules’ for short),
mandate that the Authorised Officer, as
prescribed under Section 16 thereof of the
‘Act’, is to hear the parties within 10 days and

¶31

WP(C) NOS.39584 & 40271 OF 2023

¶32

¶33

to consider their objections, leading to

¶34

appropriate orders, no action has been taken

¶35

until now. They, therefore, pray that the

¶36

impugned proceedings in these cases, be set
aside.

¶37

3.Sri.V.Premchand – learned counsel for

¶38

the petitioners in both cases, submitted that,
as far as the petitioner in WP(C)No.40271/2023

¶39

is concerned, the vessel in question was
released to him on a Self Bond; while, that
involved in WP(C)No.39584/2023 had been refused

¶40

to be and is now in a virtual state of

¶41

disrepair and likely to sink. He submitted that,
therefore, his clients have been constrained to
approach this Court, seeking that the competent
Authority be directed to act as per Rule 21 of
the ‘Rules’; and that, in the meanwhile, the

¶42

WP(C) NOS.39584 & 40271 OF 2023

¶43

¶44

vessel involved in WP(C)No.39584/2023 be

¶45

released to the petitioner therein on his Self
Bond.

¶46

4.Sri.Sunil Kumar Kuriakose – the learned
Government Pleader, in response to the afore
submissions, submitted that these writ petitions
are unnecessary because the competent Authority
has already issued notices to the petitioners to
appear before him, under the ambit of Rule 21 of
the ‘Rules’. He submitted that it is without
awaiting further proceedings that they have
approached this Court through this writ

¶47

petition. He added that as regards the vessel in
WP(C)No.39584/2023, the same can be released
soon after the competent Authority completes
procedure in terms of the afore measures taken.

¶48

WP(C) NOS.39584 & 40271 OF 2023

¶49

¶50

5.When I evaluate and consider the afore

¶51

rival submissions, it is indubitable that even
respondents do have a case that Rule 21 of the
‘Rules’ can be avoided in any manner whatsoever.
In fact, the stand of the learned Government
Pleader is that it has been complied with and
that the parties are being heard today; though,
I must record that it is the specific case of
Sri.V.Premchand that his clients have not
received any such notices.

¶52

6.Therefore, in order to balance the rival
interests, I deem it appropriate to dispose of
these writ petitions with the following
directions:

¶53

a)WP(C)No.39584/2023 is allowed to the

¶54

limited extent of directing the competent

¶55

WP(C) NOS.39584 & 40271 OF 2023

¶56

¶57

Authority to release the vessel in question to

¶58

the petitioner on appropriate term.

¶59

b)The competent Authority will hear the
petitioners in both these cases within the
purlieu of Rule 21 of the ‘Rules’, after

¶60

allowing them to file objections and issue
appropriate final orders in this regard, as
expeditiously as is possible, but not later than
two months from the date of receipt of a copy of

¶61

this judgment. For this purpose, the
petitioners, if they do not appear today before
the said Authority, will be issued with another

¶62

notice and will be heard and their version
recorded; and the opinion of the said Authority
on it will be reflected in the resultant order.

¶63

c)Needless to say, the fate of the vessels
involved in this case will depend upon the

¶64

WP(C) NOS.39584 & 40271 OF 2023

¶65

¶66

decision to be taken by the competent Authority,

¶67

in terms of the afore directions.

¶68

 Sd/-

¶69

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶70

JUDGE

¶71

SAS

¶72

WP(C) NOS.39584 & 40271 OF 2023

¶73

¶74

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 40271/2023

¶75

PETITIONER’S EXHIBITS:

¶76

Exhibit-P1A TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION
DATED 10.03.2023 ISSUED UNDER THE MERCHANT
SHIPPING (REGISTRATION OF INDIAN FISHING
BOATS) AMENDMENT RULES, 1988
Exhibit-P2A TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 30.01.2023
ISSUED BY THE KERALA FISHERMEN'S WELFARE FUND
BOARD
Exhibit P3A TRUE COPY OF THE PERMIT DATED 17.03.2023
ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT
Exhibit-P4A TRUE COPY OF THE MAHAZAR DATED NIL ISSUED
FROM THE OFFICE OF THE 5TH RESPONDENT
Exhibit-P5A TRUE COPY OF THE KYCHIT DATED NIL

¶77

WP(C) NOS.39584 & 40271 OF 2023

¶78

¶79

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 39584/2023

¶80

PETITIONER’s EXHIBITS:

¶81

`Exhibit-P1`	`A TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DATED 01.08.2022`
`Exhibit-P2`	`A TRUE COPY OF THCERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION` `DATED 12.09.2022 ISSUED UNDER THE MERCHANT` `SHIPPING (REGISTRATION OF INDIAN FISHING` `BOATS) AMENDMENT RULES, 1988E`
`Exhibit-P3`	`A TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 05.01.2023` `ISSUED BY THE KERALA FISHERMEN'S WELFARE FUND` `BOARD`
`Exhibit-P4`	`A TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 14.11.2023` `ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT`
`Exhibit-P5`	`A TRUE COPY OF THE MAHAZAR DATED 19.11.2023` `ISSUED BY THE FISHERIES EXTENSION OFFICER,` `MATYSA BHAVAN, PORATHAOOR`
`Exhibit-P6`	`A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 02.02.2021` `IN W.P.(C).NO.1971/2021 BEFORE THE HON'BLE` `HIGH COURT OF KERALA, AT ERNAKULAM`
`Exhibit-P7`	`A TRUE ZCOPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 18.11.2023` `ISSUED FROM SUPREMO PETROLEUM, BEYPOREE`
`Exhibit-P8`	`A TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 10-11-2023 IN` `ECO SOUNDER MACHINE WORTH RS. 54,500/-.`
`Exhibit-P9`	`A TRUE COPY RECEIPT DATED 10.11.2023 OF THE`

Muhammed Nisham K P , v. the Principal Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Muhammed Nisham K P , v. the Principal Secretary

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

Prof.M.K.Sanoo, Vs State of Kerala

Sherry K Paul, Vs Chairman

Aruvipuram Sree Narayana Dharma Paripalana Yogam, Vs the State of Kerala

Biju.K Vs Indusind Bank

Raghavan Nair Vs Kerala State Financial Enterprises Limited

Daya, Vs the Branch Manager