- 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND WRIT PETITION No. 11481/2022 (GM-RES) C/W WRIT PETITION No.17707/2021 (GM-RES) IN WP No.11481/2022 BETWEEN: 1 . MYSORE TALUK ALPASANKYATARU MATHU HINDULIDA VARGADAVARU, MEENU UTPADANE MATHU MARATA SAHAKARA SANGHA (NIYAMITHA), SOCIETY REGISTERED UNDER THE SOCIETIES REGISTRATION ACT, No.295, 3RD CROSS, RAJEEV NAGAR, 2ND MAIN ROAD, MYSORE, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, RASHID KALANDAR, S/O LATE SABULAL, AGED 44 YEARS, VARUNA HOBLI, MYSORE-570019. ...PETITIONER (BY SRI MANMOHAN P. N., ADVOCATE) AND: 1 . STATE OF KARNATAKA, DEPARTMENT OF FISHERIES, M. S. BUILDING, - 2 - BENGALURU-560001, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2 . DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, MYSORE DISTRICT, MYSORE-570001. 3 . ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, FISHERIES DEPARTMENT, MYSORE-570001. 4 . DEPUTY DIRECTOR, FISHERIES DEPARTMENT, MYSORE DISTRICT, MYSORE-570001. 5 . ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FISHERIES, ZILLA PANCHAYATH, MYSURU-570001. 6 . MYSURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE, NEXT TO BANUMAIAH COLLEGE, SAYYAJI RAO RD, AGRAHARA, CHAMARAJPURA, MYSURU, KARNATAKA-570024. REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI SPOORTHY HEGDE N., HCGP FOR R1 TO R5; SRI PALLAVA R, ADVOCATE FOR R6) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 16.05.2022 PASSED BY THE R5 BEARING No.HAGUPA/17/2020.21(ANNEXURE-X). QUASH THE ORDER DATED 14.03.2022 PASSED BY THE R2 BEARING No.MUNISI(4) MYNAPA/KERE AHBIVRIDHI/2015.16 (ANNEXURE-W) AND THE RESOLUTION DATED 22.02.2022 PASSED BY THE R2 (ANNEXURE-W). - 3 - IN WP No.17707/2021 BETWEEN: 1 . MYSORE TALUK ALPASANKYATARU MATHU HINDULIDA VARGADAVARU, MEENU UTPADANE MATHU MARATA SAHAKARA SANGHA (NIYAMITHA), SOCIETY REGISTERED UNDER THE COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES ACT, No.295, 3RD CROSS, RAJEEV NAGAR, 2ND MAIN ROAD, MYSORE, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, RASHID KALANDAR, S/O LATE SABULAL, AGED 44 YEARS, VARUNA HOBLI, MYSORE-570019. ...PETITIONER (BY SRI MANMOHAN P. N., ADVOCATE) AND: 1 . STATE OF KARNATAKA, DEPARTMENT OF FISHERIES, M. S. BUILDING, BENGALURU-560001, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2 . DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, MYSORE DISTRICT, MYSORE-570001. 3 . ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, FISHERIES DEPARTMENT, MYSORE-570001. 4 . DEPUTY DIRECTOR, FISHERIES DEPARTMENT, - 4 - MYSORE DISTRICT, MYSORE-570001. 5. MYSURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE, NEXT TO BANUMAIAH COLLEGE, SAYYAJI RAO RD, AGRAHARA, CHAMARAJPURA, MYSURU, KARNATAKA-570001. REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI SPOORTHY HEGDE N., HCGP FOR R1 TO R4; SMT. GEETHADEVI M.P., ADVOCATE FOR R5) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT RESPONDENTS TO CONSIDER REPRESENTATIONS DATED 19.07.2017, 22.07.2019, 10.11.2020 AND 02.02.2021 AND TO CONSEQUENTLY PERMIT THE PETITIONER AND ITS MEMBERS TO CARRY ON FISHING ACTIVITIES IN HEBBALA KERE, MYSURU AS PER THE ORDER DATED 23.06.2015 ISSUED BY R4 RENEWED VIDE ORDER DATED 19.06.2021 ISSUED BY R3 AND FURTHER DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO EXTEND THE LEASE FOR A FURTHER PERIOD OF FOUR YEARS FROM THE DATE OF HANDING OVER THE LAKE TO PETITIONERS ANNEXURE-B, D, F, L, K AND T ETC. THESE WRIT PETITIONS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING: - 5 - CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND C.A.V. ORDER The petitioner has filed W.P. No.11481/2022 seeking to quash the order dated 14.03.2022, along with the resolution dated 22.02.2022 (Annexure-W) and the order dated 16.05.2022 (Annexure-X), passed by respondent No.2 and W.P. No.17707/2021, seeking a writ of mandamus directing the respondent to consider its representations dated 19.07.2019, 22.07.2019, 10.11.2020, and 02.02.2021. 2. The petitioner is a society comprising of 124 members engaged in fishing activities. It is registered under the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959. Respondent No. 4 granted a lease of Hebbala Kere in favor of the petitioner for fishing activities for a period of five years, commencing from 2015-16 to 2019-20. Subsequently, the respondents entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with Infosys Foundation on 06.06.2016 for the rejuvenation of the lake. Owing to the development work undertaken by Infosys - 6 - Foundation, the petitioner was prevented from carrying out fishing activities from 2016-17 onwards. As part of the rejuvenation work, the lake was drained, rendering fishing activities not only prohibited but also impossible. 3. The petitioner submitted a representation dated 19.07.2019 to the respondents, requesting an extension of the lease period by two years. Similar representations, reiterating the same request, were submitted on 22.07.2019 and 02.02.2021. Respondent No.4, through a communication dated 03.02.2021, recommended to respondent No.2 that the petitioner is permitted to carry out fishing activities in the lake. Subsequently, respondent No.3, by order dated 19.06.2021, extended the lease period by one year. 4. The petitioner filed W.P. No.17707/2021 seeking appropriate relief. However, by a communication dated 14.03.2022, accompanied by a resolution dated 22.02.2022, respondent No.2 decided that, in view of the lake being rejuvenated by Infosys Foundation under the CSR fund, and as a condition of redevelopment, no - 7 - commercial activities, including fishing, would be permitted after the expiry of the lease. 5. Respondent No. 5, relying on the resolution dated 20.02.2022, rejected the application for lease extension. 6. The petitioner upon inviting bids for fishing activities in other lakes, participated in the tender process and was granted a lease for fishing activities in Varuna Lake for the period from 2022-23 to 2026-27. 7. Heard Shri P.N.Manmohan, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Shri N.Spoorthy Hegde, learned HCGP for the respondents-State, Smt.Geetha Devi M.P. and Shri Pallava R., learned Counsel for respondent-Mysuru Mahanagara Palike. 8. Shri P.N. Manmohan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner was granted a lease of Hebbala Lake for a period of five years, commencing from 2015-16 to 2019-20. However, during this period, the respondent authorities entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with Infosys - 8 - Foundation for the rejuvenation of the lake, resulting in the immediate suspension of fishing activities. Before the commencement of the rejuvenation work and the allocation of another area, fishing activities were effectively carried out only for three years 2015-16, 2016- 17, and 2021-22. The petitioner’s representation seeking a two-year extension of the lease was rejected by referring to the resolution dated 22.02.2022, wherein it was decided not to permit any commercial activities, including fishing, in Hebbala Lake. 9. It is submitted that the lease period for fishing activities is fixed at five years, considering the significant investments required by the lessee. The petitioner, having a legitimate expectation of conducting fishing activities, made substantial investments in Hebbala Lake. However, before deriving any returns on these investments, the fishing activities were abruptly halted due to the rejuvenation work undertaken by Infosys Foundation at the direction of the respondent authorities. Although fishing was carried out for two years before the - 9 - rejuvenation work began, subsequent restrictions imposed by the authorities rendered the fishing operations ineffective for another two years. 10. It is submitted that although the petitioner was permitted to carry out fishing activities in the year 2021- 22, the complete draining of the lake for rejuvenation rendered this period purely notional, with no actual fishing activity taking place. Due to the abrupt stoppage of fishing activities under the guise of rejuvenation, the petitioner was not only deprived of an uninterrupted five-year lease period but also suffered financial losses on the investments made. Despite submitting representations seeking an extension of the lease to compensate for the lost period, the same were left pending and unanswered, even though the petitioner had approached this Court in W.P. No. 17707/2021. Furthermore, the rejection of the petitioner’s request for a lease extension, based on a resolution prohibiting commercial activities, constitutes an arbitrary exercise of power, effectively depriving the petitioner of the right to carry out fishing activities. - 10 - 11. The learned AGA appearing for the respondents- State submits that the petitioner was granted a fishing license prior to the acceptance of Infosys Foundation’s proposal for the redevelopment of the lake. The redevelopment project, undertaken by Infosys Foundation with an investment of ₹105 crores, includes the construction of a sewage treatment plant with an 8 MLD capacity. Regard to the fact that Hebbala Lake was to be developed and rejuvenated in the larger public interest, the individual interest of the petitioner must yield to the greater public good. The petitioner cannot seek to enforce the contract as a fundamental right. 12. It is further submitted that the lake redevelopment work commenced in April 2017 and was completed in March 2018. Considering various factors, including the ecosystem and natural habitats, a decision was made not to permit any commercial activities in the lake. This restriction was inclusive of fishing activities as well. 13. It is submitted that fishing activities were permitted until April 2017, and construction work commenced in - 11 - April 2018. It is further submitted that even while the redevelopment work was in progress, the petitioner continued to engage in fishing activities. Moreover, the petitioner was granted a one-year extension, thereby ensuring that the total period for carrying out fishing activities amounted to five years. In view of these submissions, the learned AGA prays for the dismissal of the petition. 14. Considered the submissions of learned Counsel for the parties and perused the records. 15. Respondent No. 4 granted a lease of Hebbala Lake for fishing activities for a period of five years, commencing from 2015-16 to 2019-20. Meanwhile, a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) for the rejuvenation of lake was executed with Infosys Foundation on 06.06.2016. Immediately thereafter, the lake was drained for the purpose of rejuvenation, as evidenced by the photographs placed on record, which remains undisputed by the respondents. Although there is an inconsistency regarding the exact period during which the petitioner carried out - 12 - fishing activities and the subsequent extension of the lease, the petitioner has placed on record that fishing activities were conducted during the years 2015-16, 2016- 17, and 2021-22. Despite the representations by the petitioner to the respondent authorities seeking an extension for the unavailed lease period, the same were not considered. Instead, under the impugned communications, the representations were rejected by citing the resolution dated 22.02.2022, which imposes a ban on fishing activities in Hebbala Lake. 16. As suggested by the respondent authorities by order dated 13.09.2023, this Court directed the petitioner to identify and propose an alternative tank where fishing rights could be granted. In compliance with the said direction, the petitioner filed a memo dated 11.12.2023, stating that a fishing license has been granted in Varuna Lake until 2026-27. The petitioner further submitted that this license may be considered for extension to compensate for the unutilized period of fishing activity in Hebbala Lake. - 13 - 17. The learned AGA has strongly objected to the petitioner’s suggestion, contending that, as per the fishing policy, fishing rights must be granted through a public auction. 18. The petitioner was granted fishing rights for a period of five years, duration purposefully fixed to account for various factors affecting fishing activities. This period considers natural variations such as shortfalls or excesses in rainfall and allows for necessary investments, namely fish production, maintaining cleanliness and purity of water etc. Once a lease is granted for five years, the petitioner acquires a reasonable right, expectation, and assurance to carry out fishing activities for the entire period under the contract. While there is no dispute regarding the State’s authority to terminate the contract, such termination must withstand the test of reasonableness and fairness. 19. The petitioner was permitted to carry out fishing activities from 2015-16, with the lease commencing on - 14 - 23.06.2015. However, the Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with Infosys Foundation for the rejuvenation of lake was executed later, on 06.06.2016. 20. There is an inconsistency in the stand of respondents regarding the exact date on which the rejuvenation work commenced. The petitioner contends that fishing activities were interrupted due to the rejuvenation work, and as compensation, a one-year lease extension was granted for 2021-22. The original lease period was from 2015-16 to 2019-20, and the petitioner sought an extension of two years. However, the respondents granted an extension only up to 2021-22, seemingly based on their assertion that fishing activities were restricted for two years within the five-year lease period and that the granted extension adequately covered the period of loss. This reasoning, however, lacks any substantive basis. As per the records, the lease commenced in 2015-16, and fishing activities continued until 2016-17. The State, in its statement of objections, has stated that the rejuvenation work began in April 2017, implying that no fishing activities took place in - 15 - 2017-18. After the completion of rejuvenation work, fishing was again permitted only for the year 2021-22. Thus, it is evident that after 2016-17, fishing activities were allowed only in 2021-22. A holistic consideration of the above facts leads to the conclusion that the petitioner was effectively permitted to carry out fishing activities for only three years 2015-16, 2016-17, and 2021-22. 21. The issue for consideration before this Court is whether the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of the two- year unutilized period under the lease agreement for Hebbala Lake and, if so, whether the compensation for this unutilized period should be granted by extending the fishing license in Hebbala Lake or by allotting fishing rights in an alternative lake. 22. The petitioner was granted the right to carry out fishing activities in Hebbala Lake for a period of five years. However, out of this five-year period, fishing activities were permitted for only three years. The petitioner had a legitimate expectation to engage in fishing activities for the entire lease term. Without any lapse on the part of - 16 - petitioner, fishing activities were interrupted after two years and were only resumed for one year following a three-year gap. The petitioner society comprises members from minority and backward communities who rely on fishing as their primary livelihood. Fishing activities also involves various environmental and ecological considerations and requiring significant preparation for fish production. The abrupt suspension of fishing activities has likely caused financial losses to the petitioner, which cannot be disregarded outright. The fact of extension of lease by one year would suggest that the petitioner was not allowed fishing to continuous five years period. 23. The extension of fishing activities for the unutilized period of two years would not cause any prejudice to the state exchequer. However, granting such an extension would provide livelihood to 124 members of the minority and backward classes, ensuring their continued means of sustenance. 24. In light of the resolution passed by the respondent authorities prohibiting fishing activities in Hebbala Lake, - 17 - an extension in the same lake cannot be considered. However, the unutilized period can be compensated by granting fishing rights in an alternative lake. 25. The memo dated 11.12.2023 encloses a Government Order granting the petitioner fishing rights in Varuna Lake until 2026-27, subject to the payment of the applicable license fee. Considering an extension of the fishing license in Varuna Lake for an additional two years on the same terms would not prejudice the interest of the State. Equity can be balanced by directing the respondent authorities to extend the lease period of Varuna Lake by two years, subject to the same financial conditions applicable to the existing lease. Such an extension would not adversely affect the interest of State but would significantly benefit the interest of 124 members of backward and minority communities whose livelihoods depend on fishing activities. Additionally the need of continuous fishing activities for the period would also suggest continuation of lease in Varuna lake. - 18 - 26. In view of the foregoing discussions, I pass the following: ORDER (a) The writ petitions are partly allowed; (b) The respondents are hereby directed to extend the lease period of varuna Lake by two years after the expiry of the current lease period, as granted under the order dated 20.02.2023, passed by the Joint Commissioner, Fisheries Department, Mysore. Accordingly, the respondent authorities shall extend the lease period of varuna lake by two additional years i.e., up to 2028-29. No order as to costs. Sd/- (K. V. ARAVIND) JUDGE Yn.