IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 1ST FEBRUARY 2011 / 12TH MAGHA 1932 WP(C).No. 3297 of 2011(J) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ JOHN BOSCO, AGED 45, S/O.MANUEL PILLAI, NEAR GOVERNMENT HOSPITAL, THOTHOOR, KANYAKUMARI. BY ADV. SRI.PRAVEEN K. JOY SRI.ADEEP ANWAR RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY (FISHERIES DEPARTMENT), PARLIAMENT HOSUE, NEW DELHI. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY (FISHERIES DEPARTMENT), SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. 3. THE DIRECTOR OF FISHERIES, FISHERIES DEPARTMENT, TRIVANDRUM. 4. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF FISHERIES, FISHERIES DEPARTMENT, FISHERIES STATION, VYPEEN, AZHIKAL P.O., 682 510, ERNAKULAM. 5. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, UNION TERRITORY OF LAKSHADIVES, KAWARATHI, PIN 682555. GOVT.PLEADER SRI.P.N.SANTHOSH SRI.T.P.M.IBRHAIM KHAN, ASG SRI.S.RADHAKRISHNAN, SC FOR R5 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 3297 OF 2011 ===================== Dated this the 1st day of February, 2011 J U D G M E N T Petitioner claims to be the owner of a fishing boat. According to the petitioner, on 30/10/2008, while the boat was engaged in deep sea fishing within the Indian territorial waters, residents of Lakshadweep attacked the boat. It is stated that, as a result thereof, the crew had to abandon the boat, and that, since then, the whereabouts of the boat are unknown, as a result of which, complaints were made for payment of compensation. It is stated that there has not been any progress in the matter and that led the petitioner to file this writ petition. 2. Learned standing counsel appearing for the 5th respondent submits that they received Ext.P5 complaint in this respect from a Member of Parliament. It is stated that when enquiries were made, the boat was found in an abandoned condition. It is stated that, the boat is still available, and that, it is open to the petitioner to take it over. Thus, the case of the petitioner that the boat is irretrievably lost is incorrect. 3. In view of the submission thus made on behalf of the WPC No. 3297/11 :2 : 5th respondent, the remedy available to the petitioner is to approach the 5th respondent and take steps for taking over the boat from where it is available. In such circumstances, I do not find any justification to direct respondents 1 to 4 for payment of compensation. Needless to say that once the petitioner approaches the 5th respondent, it will be open to the 5th respondent to insist on compliance with the statutory formalities for taking further action in the matter. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp