Agency For Development Of Aquaculture vs Sea View Prawn Hatcheries Pvt Ltd
2024 Latest Caselaw 13323 Ker

Kerala High Court

Agency For Development Of Aquaculture vs Sea View Prawn Hatcheries Pvt Ltd 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. 435 OF 2024
                       JUDGMENT DATED 07.02.2024
                  ARISING FROM WP(C) NO.2641 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)/PETITIONER AND 1ST RESPONDENT:

    1       SEA VIEW PRAWN HATCHERIES PVT LTD,
            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.

            BY ADV.
            SMT.PINKU MARIAM JOSE


     THIS    REVIEW   PETITION   HAVING    COME   UP   FOR   ADMISSION   ON
23.05.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
 RP NO.435/2024 in WP(C)NO.2641/2024

                                -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 07.02.2024, 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.435/2024 in WP(C)NO.2641/2024

Mariam Jose, in response to the afore

submissions, submitted that, as evident from the

judgment itself, the impugned order, namely

Ext.P8, only indicates that the Managing

Director of the Review Petitioner 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.P8 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.435/2024 in WP(C)NO.2641/2024

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.435/2024 in WP(C)NO.2641/2024

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