IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 5TH OCTOBER 2009 / 13TH ASWINA 1931 WP(C).No. 30226 of 2008(W) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- P.SABU, POZHIMUGHAM HOUSE, THOTTAPPILLY POST, AMBALAPPUZHA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.S.SANAL KUMAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO HOME DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE PURAKKAD GRAMA PANCHAYATH, PURAKKAD REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PURAKKAD, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. 3. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, AMBALAPPUZHA, ALAPPUZHA. ADV. SMT.P.V.ASHA FOR R2 BY GOVT. PLEADER V MANU THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX(WPC 30226/2008) PETITIONER'S EXTS. EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DTD. 22.8.2008. RESPONDENTS' EXTS. EXT.R2(a) TRUE COPY OF THE RESOLUTIO DTD. 21.8.2008 OF R2. EXT.R2(b) TRUE COPY OF THE MASS PETITION DTD. 28.9.2008 ADDRESSED TO THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR. EXT.R2(c) TRUE COPY OF THE RESOLUTION DTD. 10.10.2008 OF R2. lgk THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J ........................................... WP(C).NO. 30226 OF 2008 ............................................ DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2009 JUDGMENT The petitioner seeks directions for what he calls as requirement to abate nuisance created by drying of fish and prawns in public places. He appears to be supported by the panchayat, which has resolved that there should not be any drying in public place. Police authorities have also been notified of this. But nothing has happened because there are mass representations, one after the other, from the local inhabitants, that they should be permitted to dry fish, prawns etc in public places. 2. The situs that has come for consideration in this writ petition is `Thottappilly', which is part of Purakkad Grama Panchayat. Even going by the pleadings in the second paragraph of the writ petition, it is a coastal area, with numerous peeling sheds. It is thickly populated, predominantly by fishermen. Even according to the petitioner, the area is a fishing hamlet. 3. The petitioner, 36 year old P Sabu, residing in Pozhimugham house, Thottappilly, does not have a shred of pleading in the writ petition regarding the requirement for him to Wpc 30226/2008 2 continue in that place, though it is always a fundamental right to freedom of movement which enables one to settle wherever he wants. He does not show how he is individually so aggrieved against the requirement of the larger sector of the population. The writ petition does not really disclose even a balance of any right in his favour which will outweigh the larger livelihood rights which are essentially human rights of fishermen who depend on various activities in the large coastal zone of the State. 4. On query by this court, learned counsel for the panchayat also states of it having had filed a writ petition in the wake of certain competitive exercise by some individuals, in relation to a market. Obviously, that indicates that there is lot of competition in the sector. I record this not to indicate that the petitioner is in any way involved in that competition. 5. But, one thing is certain. The larger requirement of that coastal belt is to provide daily bread and butter for those who depend on fishing and other activities. For me, I can vouchsafe that none would go to seashore to get the smell of jasmine. It is Wpc 30226/2008 3 a matter of record of the State Government that large amount of support is required even to sustain certain fishing communities, more so, in the growing scenario of liberalisation, privatization and globalization. In this State, the situation is such that debt relief measures are taken for fishermen. In the constitutional balance with, Part III and Part IV and the Directive Principles of State Policy, guided by the larger international commitments of this Nation, under international laws, covenants and treaties, and other international documents which have become compulsions on Indian Government by virtue of such treaties, days have come that management of this sort of issues cannot be left to be individual problems but to be taken care of from a larger perspective, protecting the interest of the majority. 6. While remembering that none is above law, and that rule of law shall always prevail even at the peril of personal liberty, balancing the larger community interest, it has to be ensured that individual causes may not be permitted to be used as a ruse coupled with the whip of a writ being issued by a court to iron Wpc 30226/2008 4 out a situation against the interest of the oppressed, suppressed and socially and economically challenged sector of the population. For the aforesaid reasons, I decline to grant an order as sought for. Writ petition fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. THOTTATHIL B RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE lgk/6/10