IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 18TH KARTHIKA 1933 WP(C).No. 27890 of 2011(I) -------------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- 1. K.J.ANTONY,S/O.JOSEPH,AGED 50 YEARS, KURISINKAL,PUTHENTHODE, ANDIKKADVU PO, KANDAKKADAVU , KOCHI -8,SECRETARY,FISHING WORKERS UNION (CITU),PUTHENTHODE UNIT,PUTHENTHODE, ANDIKKADAVU PO,KANDAKKADAVU, KOCHI-8. 2. VIJAYAN,S/O.AYYAPPAN,THAITHARA, ANDIKKADAVU PO, KANDAKKADAVU,KOCHI-8. BY ADV. SRI.K.B.DAYAL RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- 1. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF FISHERIES (ZONAL),TATAPURAM PO,DR.SALIM ALI ROAD, ERNAKULAM 682 031. 2. THE STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF FISHERIES, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001. R1 & R2 BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. M.J.RAJASHREE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/11/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.27890/2011 I APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT TO THE 2ND PETITIONER DATED 22/3/93. EXHIBIT P2 PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE PASS BOOK ISSUED TO THE 2ND PETITIONER BY THE MATSYA THOZHILALI KSHEMANIDHI BOARD,THRISSUR-1. EXHIBIT P3 PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE MINUTES IN THE JOINT MEETING DATED 15/9/2011. EXHIBIT P4 PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE PRINTED PUBLIC NOTICES ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT DATED 15/9/2011. EXHIBIT P5 PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE APPLICATION UNDER THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT, SENT TO THE IST RESPONDENT DATED 18/9/2011. EXHIBIT P6 PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE RECEIPT BY WHICH EXT.P3 APPLICATION UNDER THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT, WAS SENT TO THE IST RESPONDENT DATED 23/9/2011. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: N I L /TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO JUDGE Kss ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ---------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 27890 OF 2011 ----------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 9th day of November, 2011 J U D G M E N T First petitioner claims to be the Secretary of the Fishing Workers Union(CITU), a trade Union and the 2nd petitioner is a fisherman. According to the petitioners, the members of the 1st petitioner do traditional fishing at Kallacherry, Cheiyakadavur, Kattipparambu. The grievance in this writ petition is that the traditional fishing has been banned by Ext.P4 order. It is aggrieved by the banning order this writ petition has been filed. 2. By the time the writ petition came up for consideration, the period of the ban order which was in force for 45 days, had expired and therefore there was no necessity to go into the legality of the ban order as such. However it was complained by the petitioners that even after the expiry of the ban order they were not permitted to do traditional fishing. W.P.(C) No. 27890 OF 2011 :2 : 3. When this submission was made the learned Government Pleader was asked to obtain instructions in the matter. Accordingly he submits that the petitioners do not possess license issued under the Travancore-Cochin Fisheries Act and Rules issued under SRO 365 of 1974. It is also submitted that fisherman like the 2nd petitioner do fishing in the midnight by mixing cattle feed in the water, causing environmental hazards. This method of fishing by itself lead to lot of law and order problems. It is stated that as a result of these issues, meetings of the parties were convened and it has been decided to get a study conducted by agencies like CMFRI and Kerala University for Fisheries and Oceans Studies. It is stated that pending receipt of the report, fishing by persons like the 2nd petitioner has been ordered to be stopped to avoid further environmental hazards and also to preserve the law and order situation. W.P.(C) No. 27890 OF 2011 :3 : 4. From the above it is seen that apprehending environmental hazards and to preserve law and order, traditional fishing by the petitioners have been stopped and that such arrangement is to continue till the study report is received. At this stage therefore I am not inclined to issue any direction which will affect the conduct of study and the law and order situation that is prevailing. Therefore, the only order possible is to direct the first respondent to expedite the study already decided and to take a decision in the matter in the light of the report to be submitted. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. Sd/- ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE ul/- [true copy] P.S. to Judge