K. UCHANGAPPA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) As directed by this Court on the last occasion, learned Addl. Government Advocate has secured instruction from the respondents and submits that the communication dtd. 16/6/2022 made by the Assistant Director of fisheries, Huvina Hadagali to Deputy Director of Fisheries, Ballari is now served on the learned counsel for petitioner. In terms of the said communication the representations given by the petitioner, including the representation dtd. 25/5/2022 have been considered and it was found that the lease granted to the petitioner for a period of five years commencing from the year 2016, actually ended in the year 2021. However, having noticed the fact that in the year 2016-17 there was a drought situation, the fee payable for the next year i.e., 2017-18 was adjusted and the petitioner was not required to pay the fee for the next year. Further having regard to the Covid-19 pandemic, the lease period was extended till 30/6/2022. However, the request made by the petitioner for extending the period to enable the petitioner to harvest the fishes has been declined by the authorities.

(2.) Nevertheless, having regard to the fact that the petitioner has faced serious difficulties for more than two years, in the considered opinion of this Court, the petitioners should be permitted to harvest the fishes.

(3.) Consequently, this writ petition stands disposed of while directing the respondent/ authorities to permit the petitioner to harvest the fishes for the period of three months commencing from today. Thereafter the authorities are free to call for fresh tenders in accordance with law.