1. The petitioner is the daughter of one K.M. Jaleel, who is stated to be engaged in the small-scale selling of fish. The petitioner participated in the NEET UG, 2021 entrance examination and obtained admission pursuant to an allotment for BDS(MD) with the 4th respondent college. The petitioner states that she is entitled for the benefit of fee concession with reference to Clause 12.1.3 of Ext.P2 prospectus. The petitioner, relying on Ext.P3 issued by the 2nd respondent, contended that she is entitled for the benefit of fee concession pursuant to Ext.P2 noticed above. The 4th respondent college, however, insisted on the petitioner submitting an appropriate application before the 6th respondent herein and obtaining a certificate for extending the benefit of fee concession. On the basis of this, the petitioner presented Ext.P6 application before the 6th respondent Fisheries Officer. However, the petitioner points out that the 6th respondent did not even accept the afore application and has taken the stand that the petitioner is not eligible for the benefits noticed as above, since the petitioner's father cannot be considered to be a "fisherman/matsyathozhilali". It is in such circumstances that the petitioner is before this Court seeking a direction to the 6th respondent to pass orders on Ext.P6 application filed as above, in accordance with law.

2. I have heard Smt.Nayana Varghese, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri.Mohammed Shafi K., the learned Government Pleader for the 1st respondent, Sri.Joe J. Uruvath, the learned counsel for respondents 2 and 6, as well as Sri.Shajin Hameed, the learned counsel for the 4th respondent.

3. A counter affidavit has been filed by respondents 2 and 6. In the counter affidavit, it is pointed out that a fisherman can only be considered to be a person “engaged mainly in fishing operations for his livelihood” with reference to the provisions of the Kerala Fishermen’s Welfare Fund Act, 1985 (for short ‘the Act, 1985’), as well as the Kerala Fishermen’s Welfare Societies Act, 1980 (for short ‘the Act, 1980’). Sri.Joe Uruvath, the learned counsel for respondents 2 and 6, would point out that as has been certified in Ext.P3, the petitioner’s father is only an “allied worker”, which term has been defined under the provisions of Clause 2(a) of the Act, 1985. Therefore, it is his submission that since the petitioner’s father is only an allied worker and is not engaged in fishing operations for making out his livelihood, the benefits under the clause referred to above in Ext.P2 prospectus could not be extended to the petitioner.

4. Per contra, the learned counsel for the petitioner would seek to rely on the provisions of the Act, 1980 to contend that even “sale of marine products by members of families of fishermen” is covered and hence, the petitioner’s father requires to be considered as a "fisherman” entitled for the benefits sought for as above.

5. I have considered the rival contentions as well as the connected records.

6. True, Ext.P2 prospectus seeks to extend fee concession only to the children of “fishermen”. The fee concession extended pursuant to Ext.P2 is with reference to G.O.(MS) No.47/14/FPD dated 09.06.2014, produced along with the writ petition as Ext.P4. The Government Order at Ext.P4 states that the benefits thereunder are available to those “fishermen” having obtained registration with the 2nd respondent.

7. It is not in dispute that the petitioner’s father has obtained a registration also, as evidenced by Ext.P3. However, as already noticed, the stand of the 2nd respondent is to the effect that the registration granted is as an “allied worker”, and not as a “fisherman”, and hence, the benefits could not be extended to the petitioner.

8. Under the Act, 1985, the term “allied worker” has been defined under Section 2(a) as under:-

                  “2(a) allied worker” means any person who is engaged mainly in fishery related activities for his livelihood and who does not come under the definition of the term fisherman in clause (e) of Section 2 of the Kerala Fisherman’s Welfare Societies Act, 1980 (7 of 1981) and includes beach workers, small scale fish distributors, fish curers, peeling workers and small scale processing plant workers, who are not members or not eligible to get membership, in any other Statutory Welfare Scheme;”

                  Thus, it is only those who do not come under the definition of the term “fishermen” under Clause 2(e) of the Act, 1980, who are covered by the definition of the term “allied worker” referred to above.

9. The provisions of the Act, 1980 have chosen to define who is a “fisherman” under Section 2(e) as under:-

                  “ ‘fisherman’ means any person engaged mainly in fishing operations for his livelihood;”

                  Thus, a fisherman is defined as any person engaged mainly in “fishing operations” for his livelihood. The Act, 1980 also seeks to define “fishing operations” under Section 2(h) as under:-

                  “ ‘fishing operations’ includes-

                  (i) fishing by any means, mechanical or otherwise; and

                  (ii) the sale of marine products by members of families of fishermen, by transporting them to different places by headload or cycleload.”

                  Thus, fishing operations are stated to include:-

                  (i) fishing by any means, mechanical or otherwise; and

                  (ii) the sale of marine products by members of families of fishermen, by transporting them to different places by headload or cycle load”.

10. True, Clauses (i) and (ii) of Section 2(h) are joined by the term “and”. Therefore, it may give an idea that unless and until both the clauses are cumulatively satisfied, a person cannot be said to be engaged in the “fishing operations”. However, as rightly contended by Smt. Nayana, if such an interpretation is given to the provision of Section 2(h), the benefit would not be available to a person engaged in fishing if he does not effect the sale of the marine products by himself. Similarly, the benefits could not be extended to a person who is simply engaged in the sale of the marine products through cycle load, if he is not engaged in fishing operations stated under Section 2(h)(i). Therefore, in the opinion of this Court, the term “and” require to be considered as “or”, as otherwise, a harmonious construction could not be extended to the provisions of Section 2(h) of the Act, 1980.

11. When that be so, a person who is engaged in the sale of marine products by cycleload is also entitled for the benefits of Section 2(h) referred to above.

12. When that be so, since admittedly the petitioner’s father is a person who is engaged in the sale of marine products, he is covered by the definition of the term “fishing operations” under Section 2(h) of Act, 1980, on account of which, he cannot be considered to be an “allied worker” under Section 2(a) of the Act, 1985.

13. This Court also takes note of the report filed by the Tahsildar dated 19.02.2024, as per which, Sri.Jaleel, the petitioner’s father, is engaged in fish vending and earning an annual income of Rs.72,000/-.

14. When that be so, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner is entitled for the benefits extended pursuant to Clause 12.1.3 read with Ext.P4 Government Order referred to above.

In such circumstances, there will be a direction to the 6th respondent to accept Ext.P6 application presented by the petitioner and process the same in accordance with the observations/findings in this judgment, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of three weeks from today. On the basis of the afore, the petitioner’s claim for fee concession requires to be considered by the 4th respondent. Needless to say that on the basis of all the above, “e-grant” requires to be released to the 4th respondent by the Government.