Disposed

Kamalendu Kumar Sahu v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC21 Aug 2018WP(C)/14947/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition seeking quashment of a notice by the District Fishery Officer directing suspension of aquaculture activity due to alleged non-compliance with amended Coastal Aquaculture Authority rules. The court disposed of the application granting liberty to respond and maintaining status quo.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to respond to notice within fifteen days; status quo regarding farm operations maintained.

Kamalendu Kumar Sahu Vs State of Odisha — Writ and Judicial Review | Orissa HC (2018)

¶1

W.P.(C) No.14947 of 2018

¶2

21.08.2018 The petitioner, by filing this writ application, has prayed for quashment of notice dated 19.07.2018 issued by the District Fishery Officer, Ganjam, the opposite party no.2 under Annexure-6.

¶3

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Advocate for the opposite parties.

¶4

The Central Government, in exercise of the powers conferred by section (3) read with clause (a) of sub-section (2) of section 24 of the Coastal Aquaculture Authority Act, 2005 have amended the Coastal Aquaculture Authority Rules, 2005 by brining into force Coastal Aquaculture Authority (Amendment) Rules, 2015 and as per the amended rules, now the guidelines have been prescribed for permitting farms, which are registered for Penaeus monodon culture to take up Litopenaeus vannamei culture. As it reveals from the impugned notice under Annexure-6, farm of this petitioner has been found to be running without required permission under the Coastal Aquaculture Authority Act, 2005 read with the Rules as amended. It has also been indicated in the said notice that the site of the farm is objectionable. The said notice has been given directing the petitioner to stop aquaculture activity in the said farm and to commence said activity only after getting the farm registered and receiving the permission as provided under the Act and Rules.

¶5

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner’s farm was having the necessary registration with the Coastal Aquaculture Authority and although the application and other documents have been submitted before the authority, instead of responding to the same, this impugned notice under Annexure-6 has been issued. He further submits that the petitioner would suffer irreparable loss in case immediately the farm activity is brought to a closure and the huge investment made by the petitioner, would be useless and thus ruin the petitioner.

¶6

Learned Additional Government Advocate submits that at any cost, now in view of the provisions of the amended rules coming into force and the guidelines being on place for establishment and running of such farms, the petitioner’s farm can only run in adherence to all those. He, therefore, submits that the notice under Annexure-6 has been given to the petitioner to comply with the guidelines issued under the law in force and holding the field at present and only on receipt of permission to continue with the farm activity.

¶7

Considering the submissions made and on going through the impugned notice, as discussed above, this writ application is disposed of granting liberty to the petitioner to respond to the notice under Annexure6 by submitting all the required particulars and documents within a period of fifteen days hence for their consideration and further needful action in accordance with law by the opposite party no.2/authority concerned.

¶8

For a period fifteen days hence, the status quo in respect of the farm of the petitioner, as it stands today, shall continue to be maintained and thereafter as per the order/direction of the opposite party no.2/authority concerned.

¶9

Issue urgent certified copy on proper application.

¶10

D. Dash,J.

¶11

Basu

Kamalendu Kumar Sahu v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kamalendu Kumar Sahu v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Comnr.of I.Tax Vs Investment Promotion

Tuni Sethi@Pramila Sethi Vs State of Orissa

Dibakar Sahoo Vs Southco Utility

Ratnakar Naik Vs State and Ors.

Kanhu Charan Sahu Vs State of Odisha

Govinda Sahu Vs State of Odisha