Agency For Development Of Aquaculture vs Patani Fisheries

Kerala High Court

Agency For Development Of Aquaculture vs Patani Fisheries on 23 May, 2024

Author: Devan Ramachandran

Bench: Devan Ramachandran

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                 PRESENT
            THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
        THURSDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF MAY 2024 / 2ND JYAISHTA, 1946
                          RP NO. 437 OF 2024
                       JUDGMENT DATED 07.02.2024
                ARISING FROM : WP(C) NO.2702 OF 2024


REVIEW PETITIONER(S)/2ND RESPONDENT:

            AGENCY FOR DEVELOPMENT OF AQUACULTURE
            KERALA (ADAK), REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR,
            TC 15/1494, REEJA, MINCHIN ROAD, THYCAUD PO,
            THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695014.

            BY ADVS.
            NINU M.DAS
            BHAGAVATH SINGH C.S.


RESPONDENT(S)/PETITIONERS AND 1ST RESPONDENT:

    1       PATANI FISHERIES
            REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR,
            GEORGE PATANI, AGED 72 YEARS
            S/O JOSEPH PATANI, MARATHAKKARA P.O, OLLUR,
            THRISSUR DISTRICT., PIN - 680306

    2       DIRECTORATE OF FISHERIES
            REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR, IVTH FLOOR,
            VIKAS BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
            KERALA., PIN - 695033.

            SMT.PINKU MARIAM JOSE


     THIS    REVIEW   PETITION   HAVING    COME   UP   FOR   ADMISSION   ON
23.05.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 RP NO.437/2024 in   WP(C)NO.2702/24
                               -2-

                              ORDER

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that his client has been constrained to seek a review of the judgment of this Court dated 04.02.2024, because the copy of the Writ Petition was served upon its earlier Standing Counsel and thus that they were not aware of the pendency of the Writ Petition when the same was delivered.

2. Smt.Ninu M.Das - learned counsel for the Review Petitioner/2nd respondent in the Writ Petition, explained that the sole reason why the writ petitioner's claims were not considered by his client, was because they had not filed the 'receipt of seeds'; and that, had this been done, the controversy would not have arisen at all.

3. However, the learned counsel for the writ petitioner/1st respondent herein - Smt.Pinku RP NO.437/2024 in WP(C)NO.2702/24 -3- Mariam Jose, in response to the afore submissions, submitted that, as evident from the judgment itself, the impugned order, namely Ext.P11, only indicates that the Managing Director of the Review Petitioner/2nd respondent had rejected her client's representation simply saying that payment from the Head Office had been pending and because the receipts from the respective officers had not been made available. She pointed out that Ext.P11 does not even mention the 'receipts of fish seeds', but conceded that this issue can also be considered by the Managing Director at the time when the exercise ordered in the judgment is completed.

4. I find force in the afore submissions of the learned counsel for the writ petitioner/1st respondent because, apart from the factum of the non-appearance of the Review Petitioner being recorded, the judgment does not operate against RP NO.437/2024 in WP(C)NO.2702/24 -4- them in any manner whatsoever. I had only directed the Managing Director of the Review Petitioner to consider the claim of the petitioner, adverting to the documents produced, after affording them an opportunity of being heard.

5. Obviously, if any further documents are found necessary to be produced, or to be made available, the Managing Director can always ask the writ petitioner through a proper proceeding, which can then be answered by them, or complied with, as the case may be.

In the afore circumstances, I close this Review Petition, clarifying that the directions in the judgment was not delivered merely on account of the non-appearance of the Review Petitioner, but on the merits of the matter and understanding that it is only its Managing Director who can take a proper decision on the RP NO.437/2024 in WP(C)NO.2702/24 -5- claim of the writ petitioner/1st respondent herein.

Needless to say and as a corollary, while the exercise as ordered in the judgment is taken forward, the Managing Director of the Review Petitioner will be at liberty to seek any further information/documents from the writ petitioner/1st respondent, which will then be responded to by them appropriately.

The time frame in the judgment will, consequently, stand extended by a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

Sd/-

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE akv