In the fisheries and aquaculture sector, twenty-five PPP projects were identified in developing countries, where only 59% of the partnership involved organic certification, product handling, food safety and marketing, to increase access to national and international markets; whereas partnership was also needed in seed dissemination systems, feed production and supply networks to support the sector (Weirowski and Hall, 2008). On the other hand, it is observed that primary producers of fisheries and aquaculture are weak partners, vulnerable to exploitation and dependent compared to other public and private partners and therefore model of active partnership between the community and other partners, mainly through planned NGO interventions are needed (Lewis, 1998). Therefore, to empower the community, the concept of public-private-community partnership (PPCP) in inland fisheries is explored in this paper. The intention of exploring the prospects of PPCP can be further realized by the fact that it is observed that fishermen and aquaculturists possess less bargaining power with service providers, as they are unorganized, dispersed and deal with perishable food products. As a result, they are rarely approached by such an agent (Markelovaa, et al, 2009). Furthermore, government investment constraints led to the implementation of the partnership approach. Therefore, an intensive and pluralistic fisheries and aquaculture extension model is needed. Such a model can be sustainable if private partners, such as input suppliers and marketing agents, are selected based on the expectations of fishermen and aquaculture farmers. This “bottom-up approach to PPCP” is most important in the fisheries and aquaculture sector. The other intent of conducting this study was to explore the factors, including community expectations from potential public and private partners, that influenced the income of fishermen and aquaculturists. Partnerships, which began in the 1990s (Higgins, 1998), begin with the expectation that each party would achieve much greater goals than they ever could working individually (Kumaran et al., 2010). It was subsequently classified as statutory, voluntary, commercial or contractual (Geddes, 2005) with components such as joint planning, operational controls, communications, risk or benefit sharing, trust, contractual style and investment (Lambert, 2008). Therefore, it mainly depends on the analysis of needs, gaps, opportunities, expectations, discussion, consensus, commitment, goal, rules, planning, responsibilities, motivation, negotiation, evaluation and recognition (Anandajayasekaram and Puskur, 2010). Furthermore, it is necessary to identify the “partnership performance parameters” (Waal et al, 2010). On the other