IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN TUESDAY, THE 9TH JUNE 2009 / 19TH JYAISHTA 1931 OP.No. 14043 of 1998(V) ---------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- N.B.RAJEEV, S/O. BHASKARAN, AGED 45 YEARS, NEELIMATHARA HOUSE, KAITHARAM DESOM, N. PARUR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.RENJITH THAMPAN. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF FISHEREIS, GOVT. OF KERALA, TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF FISHERIES, GOVT. OF KERALA, TRIVANDRUM. 3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF FISHERIES, THRISSUR. 4. THE THAHSILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, KODUNGALLUR. R1 TO R4 GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. V. TEK CHAND. THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/06/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: O.P. NO. 14043/1998-V: ORDER ON C.M.P. NO. 24745/1998 IN O.P. NO.14043/1998-V DISMISSED 09/06/2009. SD/- V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE. APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE LETTER SEND BY THE FISHERIES ASST. DIRCTOR TO THE PETITIONER DTD. 28/01/1980. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE LETTER FROM THE SUB INSPECTOR OF FISHERIES, MECHANISATION, AZHICODE. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE FISHEREIS DEPARTMENT DTD. 31/07/1995. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE FISHERIES DEPARTMENT DTD. 12/11/1996. EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE LETTER SEND BY THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF FISHERIES, THRISSUR TO THE PETITIONER DTD. NIL REJECTING THE CLAIM OF THE PETITIONER. EXT.P.6: COPY OF THE REVISION PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE SECRETARY, FISHERIES DEPARTMENT, TRIVANDRUM. EXT.P.7: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 01/07/98. EXT.P.8: COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED TO SHRI K.K. VELAYUDHAN BY THE R.4. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE. Prv. V.K.MOHANAN, J. ---------------------------------------- O.P. No.14043 OF 1998 ---------------------------------------- Dated, 9th day of June, 2009 JUDGMENT Challenging Ext.P7 order, the petitioner preferred this writ petition. Ext.P7 is an order directing the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 97049.19. The said order was issued rejecting the revision petition dated 7.3.98 preferred by the petitioner. 2. According to the petitioner, he along with his father and three other persons entered into a hire purchase agreement with the Fisheries Department for the purchase of fishing boat. The value of the boat was fixed as Rs.97,035/- and the rent instalment was fixed as Rs.1543/- per month. As per the agreement, it was stipulated that in the event of default in paying the rent, the fishing boat will be taken back by the department. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is a failure on the part of the respondent in conducting auction immediately on the seizure of the O.P.NO.14043/98 -:2:- boat in question. The learned counsel pointed out that the seizure was on 27.6.84, but the auction sale was conducted only on 18.11.89, and according to him, had the auction sale was conducted in time, sufficient amount would have been realised and therefore the petitioner is in no way liable to pay the amount as demanded by Ext.P7. 4. Denying the contentions and averments taken by the petitioner, the 3rd respondent has filed a counter affidavit dated 10.11.98. Disputing the contention raised in the counter affidavit, the petitioner has filed a reply affidavit and in answer to the contention taken in the reply affidavit, the 3rd respondent has filed an additional counter affidavit. In the additional counter affidavit, it is stated that the boat and all the engine parts were in completely dismantled condition and the same were handed over to the Inspector of Fisheries only on 17.8.1987. Though the seizure of the vessel was dated 27.6.84, it is specifically stated that, engine parts and the other parts were handed over by the hirer only on O.P.NO.14043/98 -:3:- 17.8.87. It is after a lapse of 3 years from the date of seizure of the boat, i.e. on 27.6.84. Thus, according to the respondents, the contention of the petitioner that the boat was in good engine condition at the time of seizure is absolutely incorrect and baseless. 5. In the counter affidavit, it is further stated that, after receiving the parts of the boat on 17.8.87, the proposal for auction was placed at the Departmental Condemnation Committee held on 27.4.1989 and the committee decided to put the boat as a whole in auction. Before auction, a spot inspection was conducted by the departmental Foreman and the value was assessed by him as Rs.10,000/-. It is specifically stated that the value of the boat is estimated as whole and the cost of copper sheet is not exempted as it is part of the boat (hull). So, according to the respondents, the contention of the petitioner that the value of the copper sheet is not taken in to account is baseless. The same contention is repeated by the counsel at the time of hearing. O.P.NO.14043/98 -:4:- 6. From the above facts, it appears that the contention of the petitioner was rightly considered by the authority while dealing with his revision petition and thereafter passed Ext.P7 order. As per the hire purchase agreement, on the basis of which the boat was given, it is for the Department to take back the boat when there is failure in paying the instalments and, accordingly, the boat was seized, but at the time of the seizure, due to the negligence on the part of the petitioner, the boat was not in working condition because of its parts were removed and dismantled at the instance of the petitioner. Therefore I find no merit in the Original Petition and the petitioner is not entitled to get any relief. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed. V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE kvm/- O.P.NO.14043/98 -:5:- V.K.MOHANAN, J. O.P.No. 14043 of 1998 JUDGMENT Dated:.9.6.2009.