Karnataka High Court
Sri Bharatha C M Gowda vs The State Of Karnataka on 4 March, 2022
Bench: Alok Aradhe, S Vishwajith Shetty
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF MARCH 2022
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S. VISHWAJITH SHETTY
W.A. No.1116 OF 2021 (GM-RES)
IN
W.P. No.14972 OF 2021 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN:
SRI. BHARATHA C M GOWDA
S/O MAHADEVAIAH
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS
R/AT CHAKKERE VILLAGE AND POST
CHANNAPATNA TALUK
RAMANAGARA 562160.
... APPELLANT
(BY MR. RAMESHA H.E. ADV.,)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT
OF ANIMAL HUSBANDRY AND
FISHEREIES, VIKASA SOUDHA
BENGALURU 560001.
2. THE DIRECTORATE OF FISHERIES
3RD FLOOR, PODIUM BLOCK
VISHWESHARAIAH CENTRE
DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BENGALURU 560001
REP. BY ITS DIRECTOR.
2
3. THE SENIOR DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF FISHERIES
6TH FLOOR, MAHAVERA COMPLEX
BENGALURU 560001.
4. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF FISHERIES
RAMANAGARA 562138.
5. THE ASST. DIRECTOR OF FISHERIES
CHANNAPATNA
RAMANAGARA 562160.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY MRS. VANI H, AGA)
---
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED
27.08.2021 PASSED IN WP NO.14972/2021 PASSED BY THE
LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE.
THIS W.A. COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS
DAY, ALOK ARADHE J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
In this intra court appeal, the appellant has assailed
the validity of the order dated 27.08.2021 by which the writ
petition preferred by the appellant has been dismissed. The
appellant is a successful bidder who secured fishing rights in
Kanva Reservoir, Ele Hosahalli, Chanpatana Taluk in an
auction for a period of five years commencing from
01.07.2020. The appellant had paid annual bid of
Rs.1,00,46,237/- along with the registration fee on
11.02.2020 for the period 2020-21. The State Government
has reduced 25% of the bid amount payable for the year
2021-22 due to COVID-19 pandemic. Thereafter, the
appellant submitted a representation dated 24.06.2021. The
State Government has further reduced the amount by 25%.
The appellant therefore, was required to deposit only 50% of
the bid amount for the year 2021-22 on or before
31.08.2021 vide the impugned communication. However,
instead of paying the aforesaid amount, the petitioner filed a
writ petition seeking quashment of the communication dated
03.08.2021 and sought waiver to the extent of 100% of the
bid amount. The learned Single Judge, dismissed the writ
petition preferred by the appellant, inter alia, on the ground
that in the absence of any provisions in the policy, no relief
of waiver of the bid amount can be granted to the petitioner.
In the aforesaid factual background, this appeal has been
filed.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that he
has not been able to carry out the fishing operations on
account of the prevailing pandemic situation and therefore,
requirement of depositing the auction amount should be
dispensed with. On the other hand, learned Government
Advocate has opposed the prayer.
3. We have considered the submissions made on both
sides and have perused the record. It is trite law that a writ
can be issued only for enforcement of a legal right. The
counsel for the appellant despite sufficient opportunity being
granted is unable to point out infraction of any legal right
enabling him to seek 100% of the waiver amount. In the
absence of existence of any legal right in favour of the
appellant to seek waiver of 100% bid amount as well as in
the absence of any provision in this regard in the policy
framed by the State Government, we do not find any ground
to entertain this appeal. The same fails and is hereby
dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
ss
