##PAGE1##

- 1 -

NC: 2026:KHC:4792

WP No. 2395 of 2026

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 29^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD

WRIT PETITION NO. 2395 OF 2026 (GM-RES)

BETWEEN:

DR B R AMBEDKAR SCHEDULED CASTE

AND SCHEDULED TRIBE

MINUGARARA SAHAKARA SANGHA LTD.,

OFFICE/AT THIRUMALAPURA,

CHINAKURALI HOBLI,

SANABA POST, PANDAVAPURA TALUK,

MANDYA DISTRICT - 571455,

REPRESENTED BY ITS

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

SRI. DHANADAS.

…PETITIONER

(BY SRI. NAGENDRA C S.,ADVOCATE)

AND:

Digitally

1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

signed by

VANAMALA DEPARTMENT OF ANIMAL HUSBANDRY

N

AND FISHERIES, M.S. BUILDING,

Location:

HIGH AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,

COURT OF

BENGALURU - 560 001.

KARNATAKA

REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY

2. THE DIRECTOR OF FISHERIES,

DEPARTMENT OF FISHERIES,

3^RD FLOOR, PHODIUM BLOCK,

VISHWESHWARAIAH BLOCK,

AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU - 560 001.

##PAGE2##

- 2 -

NC: 2026:KHC:4792

WP No. 2395 of 2026

HC-KAR

3. THE JOINT DIRECTOR OF FISHERIES,

MYSURU ZONE, NO.12A, 9^TH CROSS,

K BLOCK, RAMAKRISHNANAGAR,

DATTAGAHALLI, MYSURU - 570 022

4. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF FISHERIES,

MANDYA DISTRICT,

MANDYA - 571 401.

5. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF FISHERIES,

PANDAVAPURA TALUK,

MANDYA DISTRICT,

MANDYA - 571 438

6. THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE

SOCIETIES,

MANDYA SUB DIVISION,

MANDYA - 571 401

7. THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF

COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES,

PANDAVAPURA TALUK,

MANDYA - 571 434

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SMT.SARITHA KULKARNI, AGA)

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND

227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO

QUASH THE ORDER BEARING NO.

MINI/TECH/HAGUPA/2/156/2024 E-1518791 DTD.

17.01.2026 PASSED BY THE DIRECTORATE OF

FISHERIES / R-2 BY CANCELLING THE TENDER DTD.

17.09.2024 GRANTED LEASE HOLD RIGHTS FOR

##PAGE3##

- 3 -

NC: 2026:KHC:4792

WP No. 2395 of 2026

HC-KAR

HARVESTING OF FISH FOR A PERIOD OF FIVE YEARS

IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONERS LEASE AS PER ANNX-

A DTD.17.01.2026.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY

HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS

UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD

ORAL ORDER

The petitioner, a Co-operative society

constituted by fishermen from Scheduled Castes and

Scheduled Tribes, is aggrieved by the second

respondent's order dated 17.01.2026 [Annexure-A].

The second respondent, by this order, has cancelled

the lease of fishing rights granted to the petitioner on

the ground that the petitioner has subleased the

leasehold rights.

Sri Nagendra C S, the learned counsel for the

petitioner, submits that this is factually incorrect and

the petitioner has represented, apart from initiating

##PAGE4##

- 4 -

NC: 2026:KHC:4792

WP No. 2395 of 2026

HC-KAR

criminal proceedings, that the petitioner's letter

heads are misused by certain third parties. Crucially,

the learned counsel submits that the second

respondent's decision is without due opportunity to

the petitioner to show cause against the decision to

cancel the lease of fishing rights. Smt Saritha

Kulkarni, a learned Additional Government Advocate

who accepts notice for the respondents, refutes the

assertion that the decision is taken without an

opportunity to the petitioner relying upon the terms

of the second respondent's impugned order. The

learned Additional Government Advocate emphasizes

that the second respondent has observed that

petitioner is issued with notice dated 10.11.2025 but

has not responded.

It is seen from the second respondent's order

that the decision to cancel the grant of fishing

leasehold rights is premised in a complaint that is

filed by the jurisdictional police and some inquiry

##PAGE5##

- 5 -

NC: 2026:KHC:4792

WP No. 2395 of 2026

HC-KAR

based on such complaint. It is also possible that the

second respondent has caused communication to the

petitioner before taking the decision to cancel the

fishing leasehold rights but given the consequences

and the possible explanation that the petitioner could

have as against the allegation, this Court is of the

opinion that the impugned order must be read down

as another show cause notice to the petitioner with a

reasonable opportunity to show cause observing that

the second resp

Click Here to Read the rest of this document