SAFEER Vs. SUPERINRTENDENT OF POLICE RURAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER, who is duly licenced to do fishing, has come to this Court with this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to afford protection to the petitioner for carrying on legal activity of fishing using his motorised fibre canoe. According to the petitioner, respondents 4 to 9 have no legal grounds to oppose or obstruct the carrying on of fishing by the petitioner. The police officers, respondents 1 to 3, are not taking any action in accordance with law and it is with this complaint that the petitioner has come to this Court with this petition for issue of directions under Article 226 of the Constitution to afford protection to him.

(2.) RESPONDENTS 4 to 9 entered appearance through a counsel. They contended that the petitioner is not entitled to carry on the activity. According to respondents 4 to 9, the petitioner is not, under the terms of the licence issued to him, entitled to do fishing using a motorised boat and thanguvala. Inasmuch as the activity which the petitioner wants to indulge in is not permitted by law, no police protection may be ordered, contended respondents 3 to 9.

(3.) IN the light of the stand taken by the additional 10th respondent, the petitioner and respondents 4 to 9 were heard again. The learned counsel for respondents 4 to 9 submits and respondents 4 to 9 were under the impression that using motorised boat as well as fishing using mechanical devices are both prohibited and the petitioner cannot undertake such fishing activity. Now that the position has been clarified, respondents 4 to 9 accept that they shall not raise any objection against the carrying on of fishing in territorial waters by the petitioner using his motorised fibre canoe and thanguvala/kambavala. They undertake categorically and unambiguously that they shall not raise any objection to such activity of the petitioner.