Moses Robert vs The District Collector
2021 Latest Caselaw 16177 Ker

WP(C) NO. 13798 OF 2021       1



            IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                            PRESENT
        THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
 WEDNESDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF AUGUST 2021 / 13TH SRAVANA, 1943


                    WP(C) NO. 13798 OF 2021


PETITIONER/S:

           MOSES ROBERT,
           AGED 33 YEARS,
           S/O. ROBERT, ARTHILPURAYIDOM, MARIANAD,
           PUTHUKURICHY P.O, KADINAMKULAM TRIVANDRUM-695 303.

           BY ADVS.
           C.UNNIKRISHNAN (KOLLAM)
           D.JAYAKRISHNAN
           SHARON S.V.



RESPONDENT/S:


    1      THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
           2ND FLOOR, CIVIL STATION, KUDAPPANAKKUNNU P.O,
           TRIVANDRUM 695 043.

    2      THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF
           TRIVANDRUM RURAL POLICE, PALAYAM, TRIVANDRUM -695
           033.

    3      THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
           KADINAMKULAM POLICE STATION, KADINAMKULAM P.O,
           TRIVANDRUM 695 303.

    4      OUR LADY OF ASSUMPTION CHURCH MARIYANADU,
           PUTHUKURICHI, KADINAMKULAM P.O, TRIVANDRUM 695 303
 WP(C) NO. 13798 OF 2021           2

           REPRESENTED BY ITS PARISH PRIEST.

           BY ADVS.
           G.P.SHINOD
           GOVIND PADMANAABHAN
           AJIT G ANJARLEKAR
           ATUL MATHEWS




           SRI SAYED M THANGAL, GP




      THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON   04.08.2021,   THE   COURT   ON   THE   SAME   DAY   DELIVERED   THE
FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO. 13798 OF 2021              3




                              JUDGMENT

The petitioner states that he is a traditional fisherman. He ekes

out his livelihood by engaging in fishing using small vessels in and

around the Mariyanadu fishing harbour. He contends that the 4th

respondent has been insisting that the fishermen of the area should pay

a fixed percentage of the sales proceeds of the fish from all fishing

vessels who use the harbour. The petitioner would rely on an order

dated 24.6.2020 passed by the State Human Rights Commission

wherein directions were issued to the Police to intervene in the event of

any interference being caused to the fishing activities by the 4th

respondent. The petitioner contends that despite the orders passed by

the State human rights commission, the fourth respondent is insisting on

paying a levy to carry out fishing. In the said circumstances, the

petitioner is stated to have lodged Ext.P4 complaint before the 3rd

respondent. He contends that no action was taken to protect the right

of the petitioner to livelihood guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g) of the

Constitution of India. It is on these contentions that this writ petition is

filed seeking a declaration that the writ petitioner is entitled to earn a

livelihood by fishing without any hindrance from the 4th respondent or

their men and for a further direction to the respondents 1 to 3 to afford

sufficient protection to the petitioner to exercise his life and livelihood.

2. The 4th respondent has filed a statement denying all the

allegations levelled against them. Paragraph Nos. 3 to 5 are extracted

below.

3. The allegations in paragraph 1 to 13 of the writ petition are false and hence denied. The allegation that a percentage of the sale proceeds of the fish at Mariyanadu fishing harbor is being levied illegally from all fishing vessels operating therein is false and hence denied. Also the allegation that the fourth respondent is resorting to indirect methods to prevent the writ petitioner and his workers from fishing and is turning away the petitioner's workers since he is not paying the levies demanded by the fourth respondent is false, unfounded and baseless. The further allegation that there is a standoff of account of the dispute as regards the levies, leading to the petitioner being unable to conduct fishing operations and thereby eke out a livelihood is false and frivolous.

4. The fourth has never prevented the petitioner from conducting fishing or eking out his livelihood. The fourth respondent has also never insisted on any payment from any fisherman of any community. The above fact is evidently clear from the fact that the petitioner, apart from making bald and sweeping allegations, has not stated specifically a single incident whereby he was prevented from fishing, The payments depicted as illegal levies are voluntary contribution, which amounts are used for various charitable and development purpose.

5. The allegations in the writ petition are all cooked up, at the instance of the petitioner, only to suits ulterior motives and to purposefully malign and defame the catholic community and church. The petitioner is continuously raising a non existing issue, based on false and fictitious incidents created from his figment and imagination with a clear malafide agenda. The grounds raised in the writ petition are unsustainable. The writ petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed with cost.

3. I have heard Sri. C. Unnikrishnan, the learned counsel appearing

for the petitioner, Sri. Shinod G.P., the learned counsel appearing for the

respondent and the learned government pleader and have considered

the submissions.

4. In the statement filed by the 4th respondent, they have denied

that they are resorting to indirect methods to prevent the writ petitioner

and his workers from fishing. It has been further stated that the 4th

respondent has never insisted on any payment from any fisherman of

any community. It is further stated that some fishermen do voluntarily

contribute to the church, and the same cannot be stated to be an illegal

levy.

5. Having considered the submissions advanced, I find that the 4th

respondent has unequivocally asserted that they are not interfering with

the fishing activities of the petitioner and are not imposing any levy. In

that view of the matter, the petitioner cannot have any further

grievance. If contrary to the stand taken by the 4th respondent before

this Court, if they interfere in the fishing activities of the petitioner and

insist on a levy, which clearly is without any sanction of law, the

petitioner may approach the 3rd respondent and lodge a complaint. If

any such complaint is received, and if the 3rd respondent finds that the

assertions are genuine, necessary action shall be taken to ensure that

the petitioner is able to carry out the fishing activities without any

obstruction or hindrance being caused by the 4th respondent or their

men.

This writ petition is disposed of.

SD/-

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V,

JUDGE PS

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 13798/2021

PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS :

Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF NEWS REPORT IN THE NEW INDIAN EXPRESS DAILY DATED 24-07-2019.

Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 24-06-2020 HRMP NO. 8991/11/12/2019/TVM DELIVERED BY THE KERALA STATE HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION.

Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF RECEIPT DATED 31-12-2020 IN THE NAME OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT CATHOLIC CHURCH.

Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF PETITION DATED 01-07-2021 BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT SHO, KADINAMKULAM POLICE STATION.

Exhibit P5         TRUE COPY OF RECEIPT ISSUED FROM
                   KADINAMKULAM POLICE STATION FOR EXT P4
                   PETITION.



RESPONDENT(S) EXHIBITS :   NIL