STATE OF KERALA versus JOSEPH ANTONY

Citation: [1993] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 531 · Decided: 02-11-1993 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.B. SAWANT, R.M. SAHAI

Judgment (excerpt)

If 
-
-
ST ATE OF KERALA 
v. 
JOSEPH ANTONY 
NOVEMBER 2, 1993 
[P.B. SAWANT AND R.M. SAHAI, J_J.) 
Kera/a Marine Fishing Regulation Act, 1980-Sections 2, 4-Power of 
State Government to regulate, restrict or prohibit certain matters relating to 
fishing within specified areas-Notifications imposing restrictions-Validity 
of- Exercise of power-Whether arbitrary. 
Constitution of India: Articles 19(l)(g), 19(6).-i./otifications imposing 
ban on use of mechanised vessels, purse seine, pelagic and mid-water trawl 
gears for fishing in the territorial waters along the entire coast line of the State 
A 
B 
c 
of Kera/a-Whether violative of fundamental right to occupation trade or 
business guaranteed under Art. 19(1)(g) of the Constitution-Restriction- D 
Whether reasonable within meaning of Art. 19(6) of the Constitution. 
On 29-11-1980 the appellant State of Kerala in exercise of its powers 
under Sec. 4 of the Kerala Marine Fishing Regulation Act, 1980 
(hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') issued two notifications. The said E 
notifications defined the 'specified area' for the purpose of the Act, as the 
territorial waters and ·prohibited fishing by mechanised vessels using 
purse seine, pelagic and mid-water trawls along the coast line in the State 
of Kerala. These notifications, however permitted, by way of exemption the 
use of motorised country crafts in parts of the prohibited area. 
The High Court of Kerala in Babu Joseph v. State of Kera/a, ILR 
(1985)(i) Ker 402 while upholding the validity of the Act struck down the 
said notifications, as being an arbitrary exercise of power under the Act 
F 
and as being violative of the fundamental right guaranteed under Art. 
19(1)(g) of the Constitution. The High Court further directed that till a G 
fresh decision ·is taken by the State Government, mechanised fishing 
vessels shall be allowed to operate only beyond 10 Kms from the shore. 
The appellant State government, thereafter re-examined the situa- . 
tion and on 30-11-1984 issued two fresh notifications whereby (a) it 
specified the area along the entire coast line of the State but not beyond H 
531 
532 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1993) SUPP. 3 S.C.R .. 
A the territorial waters as the 'specified area' for the purpose of Clause.(d) 
of Sub Sect.(1) of Sec. 4 of the Act; (b) in order to protect the interest of 
fishermen using traditional fishing crafts and to preserve the law and 
order in the territorial waters, prohibited the use of purse seine, pelagic 
and mid-water trawls for fishing in the territorial waters along the coast 
B line of the State of Kerala. 
Writ petition was filed, before the High Court of Kerala challenging 
the fresh notifications. The High Court by its judgment and order, 
declared the said notifications to be unenforceable in so far as they 
imposed a ban on the use of purse seine nets beyond 10 Kms. The 
C restriction imposed by the notifications were held to be an unreasonable 
restriction on the fundamental right guaranteed under Art. 19(1) (g) of the 
Constitution. The Court, however, held that the notifications could be 
enforced within the limits of the 10 Kms of the territorial waters of the 
State. 
D 
Against the aforesaid order appeals were filed in this court, by the 
appellant and the original third respondent, namely the President of the 
Kerala Swanthanthra Matsya Thozhilali Federation, representing fisher· 
men using traditional fishing crafts, contending therein that the High 
Court erred in holding that (a) the restriction placed in the use of purse 
E ·seine boats and nets was unreasonable and violative of the fundamental 
rights guaranteed by Article 19(1)(g) be old material which was before the 
Court, while deciding the earlier writ petition viz. Babu Joseph v. State of 
Kera/a, could not be taken into consideration by the State Gov~rnment 
while issuing the fresh notifications; (c) that there was no new material 
F before the appellant State, while issuing the new notifications and since 
the new notifications were based on the same material on which the earlier 
notifications were based, the earlier notifications having been struck 
down, the present notifications were also liable to be struck down on the 
very said ground. 
G 
The respondent on the other hand contended that (a) mechanised 
gears which they are operating at present are not fit for off shore and deep 
sea fishing and hence should be permitted to fish within the territorial 
waters (b) Instances of viol

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.