Bhaskaran Pathappilly v. Malayattoor - Neeleeswaram Grama Panchayath

Kerala HC8 Nov 2023WP(C)/5595/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held that it could not adjudicate the dispute under Article 226 as it involved_policy decisions_. The Court granted liberty to the petitioner to approach the Fisheries Department with a representation against the Panchayat's notification and instructed the Department to decide the matter within one month. _

What did the court decide?

Petitioner granted liberty to move the 3rd respondent with a representation against the impugned notification within two weeks; the Authority must decide within one month and instruct the Panchayat.

Bhaskaran Pathappilly Vs Malayattoor… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2023 / 17TH KARTHIKA, 1945

¶5

WP(C) NO. 5595 OF 2023

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

BHASKARAN PATHAPPILLY
AGED 66 YEARS
S/O NARAYANAN, PATHAPPILLY HOUSE, ADIVARAM MATSYA CLUB,
MALAYATTOOR P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 683587
BY ADVS.
BABU CHERUKARA
ARUN BABU
JEES MARTIN

¶8

RESPONDENTS:

¶9

1MALAYATTOOR - NEELEESWARAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH
NEELEESWARAM P.O., MALAYATTOOR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY., PIN - 683574
2THE SECRETARY
MALAYATTOOR - NEELEESWARAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH, NEELEESWARAM
P.O. , MALAYATTOOR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 683574
3STATE OF KERALA
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, FISHERIES AND HARBOUR DEPARTMENT,
SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM, PIN - 695001
BY ADVS.
P.MOHANDAS(ERNAKULAM) P.
K.SUDHINKUMAR(K/572/2014)
SABU PULLAN(K/35/2001)
R.BHASKARA KRISHNAN(K/000891/2016)
GOKUL D. SUDHAKARAN(K/000886/2016)
BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶10

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
08.11.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶11

WP(C) NO. 5595 OF 2023

¶12

¶13

JUDGMENT

¶14

The petitioner says that he had been earlier
granted a contract to do “Cage Fishing” by the
1st respondent – Grama Panchayat and has produced
it as Ext.P1 in substantiation. He says that,
however, when the notification for fishing was
issued by the Panchayat this year, they have
excluded “Cage Fishing” and have invited tenders
only for ordinary fishing. He says that,
therefore, he is being constrained to approach
this Court because, he has already spent more
than Rs.60 lakhs for the purpose of “Cage
Fishing”, and thus that he would be put to ruin,
if it is not allowed to be re-auctioned this

¶15

year, for which he intends to bid.

¶16

2.Sri.K.Sudhinkumar – learned counsel for
the Panchayat, in response to the afore

¶17

WP(C) NO. 5595 OF 2023

¶18

¶19

submissions of Sri.Babu Cherukara – learned

¶20

counsel for the petitioner, submitted that it is
a matter of policy for his client to either
decide upon “Cage Fishing” or ordinary fishing.
He submitted that, after taking note of all
relevant factors and parameters, his client
decided this year not to allow “Cage Fishing”;
and added that petitioner would not be put to any
prejudice because his original contract was given
on 15.02.2018, for only a period of three years
till 14.08.2021, but that on account of the
COVID-19 pandemic disruption, he was granted
extension by two more years until 14.02.2023. He
submitted that his contract is now over and

¶21

cannot dictate to the Panchayat as to the manner
in which a further notification has to be issued.

¶22

He asserted that petitioner has no right or

¶23

competence to do so; and thus prayed that this

¶24

WP(C) NO. 5595 OF 2023

¶25

¶26

writ petition be dismissed.

¶27

submissions, juxtaposed on the various materials
on record.

¶28

Sri.K.Sudhinkumar, that it is within the policy
realm of the Panchayat to decide what kind of

¶29

fishing is required in the lake in question,

¶30

because they are the owners of the same. However,

¶31

it is the contra case of the petitioner that
“Cage Fishing” is one that is encouraged by the

¶32

Fisheries and Harbor Department of Government of
Kerala and that subsidies and other assistance is

¶33

being provided to the same. He thus asserts that

¶34

statement in Ext.P6 by the Panchayat, that no
“Cage fishing” will be allowed, is contrary to

¶35

the stated position of the Government of Kerala.

¶36

5.The dispute between the parties being

¶37

WP(C) NO. 5595 OF 2023

¶38

¶39

such, it would not be possible for this Court to

¶40

resolve it, while acting under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India because Ext.P6 is a
notification issued by the Panchayat for
commercialfishing, involving contractual

¶41

obligations to be created in favour of the
bidders. Therefore, if the petitioner has a case

¶42

that “Cage Fishing” cannot be stopped by the
Panchayat on account of the stated Policy of the
Government, it is for him to approach the 3rd
respondent with an appropriate representation, so
that said Authority can then decide the matter
and instruct or advice the Panchayat accordingly.
Beyond this, this Court cannot come to the aid of
the petitioner at this stage.

¶43

I thus allow this writ petition to the

¶44

limited extent of leaving liberty to the

¶45

petitioner to move the 3rd respondent with an

¶46

WP(C) NO. 5595 OF 2023

¶47

¶48

appropriate representation against Ext.P6; and if

¶49

this is done within a period of two weeks from
the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment,

¶50

said Authority will hear him, as also the
Panchayat, and take a final decision on his

¶51

claims, as expeditiously as is possible, but not
later than one month thereafter.

¶52

Depending upon the decision to be taken by
the 3rd respondent as afore, it will also
instruct the Panchayat appropriately, so that
necessary steps can be taken by it, if it is so
found warranted.

¶53

 Sd/-

¶54

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶55

JUDGE

¶56

SAS

¶57

WP(C) NO. 5595 OF 2023

¶58

¶59

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 5595/2023

¶60

PETITIONER’S EXHIBITS:

¶61

`Exhibit P1`	`TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT EXECUTED BETWEEN` `THE PETITIONER AND MALAYATTOOR-NEELESWARAM` `GRAMA PANCHAYAT, THROUGH IT'S SECRETARY FOR` `THE AUCTION CONDUCTED ON 08-02-2018 .`
`Exhibit P2`	`TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DATED 20-03-2020` `EXECUTED WITH THE PETITIONER AND MALAYATTOOR-` `NEELESWARAM GRAMA PANCHAYAT THROUGH IT'S` `SECRETARY.`
`Exhibit P3`	`TRUE PHOTOGRAPH SHOWING THE ARRANGEMENTS MADE` `BY THE PETITIONER FOR THE PURPOSE OF "KOODU` `MATSYA KRISHI"`
`Exhibit P4`	`TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION LETTER BY THE` `PRINCIPAL SECRETARY OF FISHERIES & HARBOUR` `DEPT. TO THE PRESIDENT OF KADAPPARA POWRA` `SAMITHI DATED 19-02-2022.`
`Exhibit P5`	`TRUE COPY OF THE AUCTION NOTICE DATED 28-1-` `2023 FIXING THE DATE OF AUCTION AS 09-02-2023` `ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT .`
`Exhibit P6`	`TRUE COPY OF THE FRESH AUCTION NOTICE ISSUED` `BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 13-02-2023.`
`RESPONDENTS’ EXHIBITS`
`Exhibit-R2(a)`	`TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION NO. 14/1 TAKEN BY` `THE 1ST RESPONDENT PANCHAYAT COMMITTEE AT ITS` `MEETING HELD ON 22-07-2019`
`Exhibit-R2(b)`	`TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION NO. 7/1 TAKEN BY THE` `1ST RESPONDENT PANCHAYAT COMMITTEE AT ITS` `MEETING HELD ON 29-02-2020`

Bhaskaran Pathappilly v. Malayattoor - Neeleeswaram Grama Panchayath

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhaskaran Pathappilly v. Malayattoor - Neeleeswaram Grama Panchayath

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

K.Suresh Babu Vs the District Collector

Baburaj .D Vs the Manager

M.T.P. Muhammed Vs Oriental Insurance Company

Krishnakumar.S Vs District Collector

Sathyadas Vs Conservator of Forest

Molecules Enviro Care, Vs the Plantation Corporation of Kerala Ltd.