IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN THURSDAY, THE 24TH FEBRUARY 2011 / 5TH PHALGUNA 1932 WP(C).No. 36094 of 2010(J) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- SAFEER, S/O. SAFARULLA, VARUVILAKOM VEEDU, PERUMATHURA, SARAKARA VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.DINESH RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. SUPERINRTENDENT OF POLICE (RURAL), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001. 2. DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, ATTINGAL. 3. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KADINAMKULAM POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. BASHEER, S/O. HABEEB, THERUVIL VEEDU, NORTH OF TIMBER MILL, PERUMATHURA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 5. BASHEER, S/O. ABDUL KASIM, THERUVIL VEEDU, PERUMATHURA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 6. SALAM ALIAS S.K.V. SALAM, THERUVIL THAIVILAKOM, PERUMATHURA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 7. NIZAR, S/O. KASIM, THERUVIL THAIVILAKOM, PERUMATHURA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 8. SALAM, S/O. ALIENS, THERUVIL THAIVILAKOM, PERUMATHURA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. WP(C).No. 36094 of 2010(J) - 2 - 9. SALIM, S/O. MUHAMMED KANNUR, THERUVIL THAIVILAKOM, PERUMATHURA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADDL.R10. THE DIRECTOR OF FISHERIES, OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF FISHERIES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001. (Addl.R10 is impleaded as per order dt.25.01.11 in I.A.No.1345 of 2011) GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.T.K.VIPINDAS FOR R1-3 SRI.J.JAYAKUMAR FOR R4-9 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 36094 of 2010(J) - 3 - APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE PASS BOOK ISSUED FROM KERALA MATSYA THOZILALI WELFARE BOARD. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED EXECUTED ON 30.08.2010 EXECUTED BY PETITIONER. EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS EXT.R4(a): TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS 4 TO 9 AND OTHERS BEFORE THE C.I OF POLICE, KAZHAKKOOTAM DATED 07.11.2010. /TRUE COPY/ R.BASANT & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. *********************** W.P(C) No.36094 of 2010 ***************************** Dated this the 24th day of February, 2011 JUDGMENT BASANT, J. 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 W.P(C) No.36094 of 2010 2 is not permitted by law, no police protection may be ordered, contended respondents 3 to 9. 3. In the light of the dispute between the petitioner on the one hand and respondents 4 to 9 on the other as to whether the petitioner is entitled to do fishing in territorial waters using motorised fibre canoe and thanguvala, the petitioner impleaded the 10th respondent, Director of Fisheries, as an additional respondent. The additional 10th respondent was directed to file a statement. 4. The additional 10th respondent has filed a statement as directed by the Court. In such statement, the additional 10th respondent takes the stand that the petitioner is absolutely entitled to carry on the activity of fishing in his motorised fibre canoe using thanguvala or kambavala. There can be no legal objection against such activity of the petitioner for which he is duly licenced. 5. 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 W.P(C) No.36094 of 2010 3 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. 6. The learned Government Pleader after taking instructions submits that in the light of the clarification by the 10th respondent, respondents 1 to 3 shall afford protection to the petitioner in case respondents 4 to 9 act against the above undertaking given by them before Court. 7. We are satisfied, in these circumstances, that the undertaking of respondents 4 to 9 and the submission of the learned Government Pleader on behalf of respondents 1 to 3 can be accepted. We accept the submission of respondents 4 to 9 that they shall not raise any objection against the petitioner undertaking activity of fishing in territorial water using his motorised fibre canoe and thanguvala/kambavala. We accept the W.P(C) No.36094 of 2010 4 submission of the learned Government Pleader that respondents 1 to 3 shall, if necessary, afford protection to the petitioner as claimed. 8. This Writ Petition is accordingly allowed in part to the above extent. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) (K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE) rtr/