Kerala High Court
Habid Vadakkayil vs State Of Kerala on 6 February, 2024
Author: Devan Ramachandran
Bench: Devan Ramachandran
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
TUESDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 17TH MAGHA, 1945
WP(C) NO. 37116 OF 2023
PETITIONER:
HABID VADAKKAYIL
AGED 48 YEARS, S/O NOORUDHEEN,
ELARAM KADAPURAM, TANUR,
MALAPPURAM, PIN - 676302
BY ADVS.
C.Y.VINOD KUMAR
K.A.JALEEL
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
DEPARTMENT OF FISHERIES, SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
2 DIRECTOR OF FISHERIES
DIRECTORATE OF FISHERIES, VIKAS BHAVAN,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695033
3 DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF FISHERIES
DISTRICT OFFICE, PONNANI,
MALAPPURAM, PIN - 679577
4 ASSISTANT ENGINEER
OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER,
PWD BUILDINGS SECTION, PONNANI,
MALAPPURAM, PIN - 679577
5 DISTRICT COLLECTOR
CIVIL STATION,
MALAPPURAM, PIN - 676505
BY ADV.
SRI.SUNIL KUMAR KURIAKOSE - GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 06.02.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C).No. 37116 of 2023
:2:
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is stated to be a fisherman by profession; as
also General Secretary of "Parambaragadha Matsya Thozhilali
Union", Malappuram District and the President of "Swathanthra
Thozhilali Union", Tanur. He says that the office of the Deputy
Director of Fisheries, Ponnani, is presently functioning in a
century-old dilapidated building at Ponnani; and that, though a new
building has already been constructed at Unniyal, Malappuram -
which is more or less centrally situated as far as the District is
concerned - no steps have been taken to shift the said office to it
until now. He, therefore, prays that the respondents be directed to
shift the office of the Deputy Director of Fisheries to the newly
constructed building at Unniyal, Malappuram, within a time frame
to be fixed by this Court.
2. In response to the afore request of the petitioner, as made
by his learned counsel - Sri.C.Y.Vinod Kumar, the learned
Government Pleader - Sri.Sunil Kumar Kuriakose, submitted that
this writ petition is not maintainable because, a person like the
petitioner do not obtain any locus to dictate to the Government
where a particular office is to be situated and in what manner it
has to be accommodated. He submitted that, even assuming that
the petitioner's allegation - that the office of the Deputy Director of
Fisheries was operating in a dilapidated building - is accepted, it is
no longer relevant because, it has been shifted to a rented building
nearby; while the new building at Unniyal is being used for various
corollary purposes, including as a Fisheries Extension Office and a
Training Centre. He, however, conceded that there is a proposal
for the construction of a new building at Ponnani, to which, the
office of the Deputy Director of Fisheries will be shifted into; and
thus prayed that this writ petition be dismissed.
3. In reply, however, Sri.C.Y.Vinod Kumar submitted that an
affidavit has been filed by his client in answer to the Statement of
the Government Pleader filed on behalf of the 2 nd respondent,
wherein, he has clearly averred that the new building is now being
put to no use at all and that the assertion, that there is a Training
Centre in it, is factually incorrect. He asserted that, no training
programme of fishermen has ever been conducted therein; and
that, in any event, even going by Ext.P10 - which is the letter of the
Deputy Director of Fisheries himself - the building where his office
is now functioning is woefully insufficient and inadequate, which is
manifest from the fact that he has requested that it be shifted to
the new building at Unniyal. He submitted that, therefore, the
Authorities are now bound to act as per the request of the Deputy
Director of Fisheries in Ext.P10 and to take necessary action.
4. The afore narrative of facts and submissions would clearly
indicate that the petitioner has approached this Court almost in
public interest, but asserting that he has a private interest because
he is a fisherman, who has to travel more than 80-100 Kilometers
to reach Ponnani. According to him, Unniyal, Malappuram, is
almost in the center point of the District, which will be useful to all
fishermen; and that, since the new building has been constructed
there, there is no legal impediment in the office of the Deputy
Director of Fisheries being shifted there.
5. However, in response, the stand of the official respondents
is that the new building at Unniyal is being used as an Extension
Centre and as a Training Centre for fishermen; and therefore, it is
not possible to accommodate the office of the Deputy Director of
Fisheries in it. That said, as rightly argued by Sri.C.Y.Vinod Kumar,
Ext.P10 - request of the Deputy Director of Fisheries, speaks to the
contrary, since he appears to have made a request that his office be
shifted to the new building at Unniyal for the reasons that are
stated therein.
6. Obviously, therefore, these are issues that must seize the
attention of the Director of Fisheries appropriately because, if the
new building is capable of housing the office of the Deputy Director
of Fisheries also, one cannot see any reason in the same being not
done, particularly taking note of the fact that Unniyal,
Malappuram, is at the center point of the District, which has not
been contested by the official respondents either.
In the afore circumstances, I direct the 2nd respondent -
Director of Fisheries, to hear the petitioner and take a decision on
his request, adverting to Ext.P10 letter issued by the 3rd
respondent - Deputy Director of Fisheries; thus culminating in an
appropriate order and necessary action thereon, as expeditiously
as is possible, but not later than one month from the date of receipt
of a copy of this judgment.
I, however, clarify that I have not answered the merits of any
of the rival contentions, though it will be up to the Director of
Fisheries to consider all of them on its merits, including the
assertion of the petitioner that the new building is sufficient
enough to accommodate the office of the Deputy Director of
Fisheries and that the construction of a new building at Ponnani
would be a waste of expenditure in the future.
This writ petition is thus ordered.
Sd/-
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
JUDGE
anm
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 37116/2023
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED
06/05/2022 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT
TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT
Exhibit 2 COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED
21/06/2022 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT
TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT
Exhibit P3 COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 06/07/23
ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE 3RD
RESPONDENT
Exhibit P4 COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 06/07/23
ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO 2ND
RESPONDENT
Exhibit P5 COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 12/07/23
SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 5TH RESPONDENT
Exhibit P6 COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT RECEIPT DATED
12/07/23 ISSUED FROM THE OFFICE OF THE
5TH RESPONDENT
Exhibit P7 COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED
07/10/2014 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT
TO THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA COASTAL
AREA DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
Exhibit P8 COPY OF THE GROUND FLOOR PLAN DATED NIL
OF THE NEWLY CONSTRUCTED BUILDING AT
UNNIYAL
Exhibit P9 COPY OF THE FIRST FLOOR PLAN DATED NIL OF
THE NEWLY CONSTRUCTED BUILDING AT UNNIYAL
Exhibit P10 COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 06/10/23
ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE 2ND
RESPONDENT
Exhibit P11 COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 18/09/23
ISSUED BY THE JOINT DIRECTOR OF
FISHERIES, KOZHIKODE
RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES
ANNEXURE R2(A) TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS
NO.DFTVM/1163/2021-D2 DATED 16/01/2023 OF
THE DIRECTOR OF FISHERIES
