ARAKERE MEENUGARARA SAHAKARA SANGHA NIYAMITHA, ARAKERE VILLAGE, SRIRANGAPATNA TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has called in question the allotment of fishing rights in favour of respondent The matter arises in the following manner. - The petitioner is a Fishermen Co -operative Society registered under the provisions of the Karnataka Co -operative Societies Act, 1959. It is the case of the petitioner that there are about 1198 members in the said society. The object of the society is to take various tanks on lease from the Fisheries Department and to rear fish in the said tanks by putting fish seedlings in the tanks, feed them and harvest them after they are sufficiently grown up. The 5th respondent is also a Fisheries Co -operative Society registered under the provisions of the Act with its Head Office at Mysore.

(2.) IT is not in dispute that all the tanks, lakes and rivers in the State would come under the control of Fisheries Department and the Department of Fisheries is allotting the said tanks, lakes and rivers either on lease or by tender and auction periodically. The Government Order dated 28 -1 -2006, a copy of which is produced at Annexure -B would govern the allotment of fishing rights to various Co -operative societies. According to the petitioner, the fishing rights in the tanks to an extent of 10 hectares shall vest with the jurisdiction of the Fisheries Department Organisations and anything about 40 hectares, it shall be allotted by the Fisheries Department on priority basis as per the Government Order at Annexure -B. It is not in dispute that the lake in question which is situated at Doddakere in Srirangapatna Taluk measures more than 40 hectares. Hence, it would be within the domain of the Fisheries Department to allot the fishing rights to the various aspirants. The case of the petitioner is that Doddakere tank would measure 140 hectares. It is their case that said tank in the first instance was allotted to them in the year 2006 for a period of five years ending on 2010 -2011 and the lease amount for those five years would vary. The petitioner -society remitted the said amount as and when it fell due. After the lease period had expired, the second respondent called for application for allotment of fishing rights in respect of Doddakere tank on lease for a period of five years commencing from 2011 -2012 to 2015 -2016. The petitioner along with 5th respondent made applications for allotment of said tank on lease for a period of five years. The Fisheries Department found that the application of the petitioner was found wanting for various reasons, inasmuch as, the loan amount was not cleared, they had defaulted in payment of their dues to the Federation and auditing was not conducted for a period of five years between 2006 -2011 and the bye -laws did not disclose the area of operation. On these specific grounds, the application of the petitioner was rejected and that of the 5th respondent was accepted, inasmuch as, the total area which was allotted to 5th respondent would fall within the permissible limit of 300 hectares. The said allotment is called in question in this writ petition. I have heard Mr. G. Chandrashekaraiah, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. B.K. Manjunath, learned Counsel for respondent 5 and Mr. K. Krishna, Additional Government Advocate for respondents 1 to 4.

(3.) MR . Manjunath, learned Counsel for respondent 5 submits that the area of operation of 5th respondent -society would include Mandya District also. He further submits that the total area which has been granted to 5th respondent is less than 300 hectares, inasmuch as, the area is measured with reference to the tank which is covered with storage area. He further submits that the petitioner cannot be heard to say that tentative audit report has been made available when the petitioner themselves had not conducted the audit for a period of five years. He further submits that the petitioner -society was due a substantial amount to the Federation to the tune of Rs. 8.00 lakhs and "No due certificate" which has been issued by the Federation cannot be accepted, more so, having regard to the Federation bye -laws. He further submits that Modus operandi of the petitioner is to take the area on lease, then sub -lease it to the other society.