Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2025 DAILYLAW 76091 (KAR)

SRI S E VENKATESH v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

WP/8576/2022 · 2025-11-26

E S Indiresh

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49031 WP No. 8576 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH WRIT PETITION NO. 8576 OF 2022 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: 1. SRI S E VENKATESH AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, S/O LATE ESWRA, NEAR RAILWAY GATE HAMPAPURA VILLAGE, HOSA AGRAHARA HOBLI, K.R.NAGAR TALUK, MYSURU DISTRICT 571602. 2. SRI K RAJU AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, S/O KADAIAH, R/AT MADDUR PETE, KRISHNARAJA SAGAR, SRIRANGAPATNA TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT 571438. 3. MR ASIF KHAN AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/AT ALAMBADI KAVAL VILLAGE, K.R.PETE TALUK, MANDYA DSITRICT 577133. 4. SRI SWAMY AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, S/O MAHADEVANAIKA, R/AT POOVANAHALLY, K.R.PETE TALUK, Digitally signed by JUANITA THEJESWINI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49031 WP No. 8576 of 2022 MANDYA DISTRICT 577113. 5. SRI ASHOKA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, S/O SHIVAIAH, YAGACHI KUPPE VILLAGE, K.R.PETE TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT 577113. 6. SRI JAVARAIAH AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, S/O LATE NARASHIMAIAH, HOSAHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, K.R.NAGARA TALUK, MYSURU DISTRICT -571602. 7. SRI KRISHNE GOWDA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, S/O LATE HOBALEGOWDA, HAROOVAHALLY VILLAGE, BILIKERE HOBLI, HUNSUR TALUK, MYSURU DISTRICT -571105. 8. SRI NAGA P AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, S/O PUTTASWAMY SHETTY, R/AT YACHEGOWDANAHALLY VILLAGE, YELWALA HOBLI, MYSURU TALUK, MYSURU DISTRICT 571130. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. MALLAPPA S NACHAVAR., ADVCOATE FOR SRI. B S NAGARAJ., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF FISHERIES - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49031 WP No. 8576 of 2022 VIDHAN SOUDHA, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDI, BENGALURU-560001. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF FISHERIES 3RD FLOOR, PODIUM BLOCK, VISVESWARAYA BUILDING, DR.AMBEDKAR VEEDI, BENGALURU-560001. 3. THE FLOATING CAGE FISHING COMMITTEE REP. BY ITS MEMBER SECRETARY, AND THE JOINT-DIRECTOR OF FISHERIES, (INLAND) 3RD FLOOR, PODIUM BLOCK, VISVESWARAYA BUILDING, DR.AMBEDKAR VEEDI, BENGALURU-560001. 4. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF FISHERIES (TRAINING CENTRE) KRISHNA RAJA SAGARA, SRIRANGAPATNA TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT 571105. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.MAHANTESH SHETTAR., AGA FOR R1 TO R4) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE R2 TO 4 - DIRECTOR OF FISHERIES, THE JOINT DIRECTOR OF FISHERIES AND THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF FISHERIES, TO CONSIDER THE APPLICATIONS DTD 19.02.2022 AND 23.02.2022 RESPECTIVELY MADE BY THE PETITIONERS SEEKING THE R2 TO 4 TO STOP THE CAGE CULTURE OF FISHING IN K.R.S, KABINI AND HEMAVATHI RESERVOIRS, COPIES AT ANNEXURE-A1 AND A2 RESPECTIVELY. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49031 WP No. 8576 of 2022 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH ORAL ORDER In this writ petition, the petitioners are seeking for a direction to the respondents to consider the applications dated 19.02.2022 and 23.02.2022 made by the petitioners at Annexures 'A1' and 'A2'. 2. Heard Sri.Mallappa S.Nachavar, on behalf of Sri. B.S.Nagaraj, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri.Mahantesh Shettar, learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondents. 3. It is submitted by the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners that respondent No.2 be directed to consider the applications dated 19.02.2022 and 23.02.2022 (Annexures 'A1' and 'A2' respectively). 4. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, respondent No.2 is directed to consider the aforementioned applications at Annexure 'A1' and 'A2' and an Endorsement be issued to the petitioners within a - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49031 WP No. 8576 of 2022 period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 5. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the consideration of the applications at Annexures 'A1' and 'A2' and the reply / Endorsement to be issued be served on the petitioner No.1 herein alone as there are several petitioners. 6. In that view of the matter, respondent No.2 is directed to consider the applications and reply be made to petitioner No.1 alone as stated hereinabove. 7. With this observation, the writ petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE JT/- CT: JL