Madras High Court
Unknown vs The Government Of Tamil Nadu on 15 July, 2021
Bench: T.S.Sivagnanam, S.Ananthi
W.P.(MD).No.15242 of 2012
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 15.07.2021
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM
AND
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.ANANTHI
W.P.(MD) No.15242 of 2012
and M.P.(MD) Nos.2 and 3 of 2012
1.R.Thirupathi
2.K.Chinnakaruppan
3.V.Jaiganesan
4.Malaisamy
5.M.Manoharan
6.Pandiyan
7.Udayakumar
8.Perumal
9.Chellapandi
10.M.Chinnan
11.K.Chandiran
12.V.Selvamani
13.P.Veeramani
14.Udayachandiran
15.P.Nallamayan
16.Paraman
17.Kannan
18.M.Rajendran
19.K.Ammavasi
20.T.Pandi
21.Veeran
22.V.Pandiyan
___________
Page 1 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD).No.15242 of 2012
23.V.Muthupandi
24.S.Pandi
25.V.Sekar
26.S.Selvam
27.K.Murugesan
28.C.Balu
29.Viswanathan
30.D.Nagarajan
31.T.Andisamy
32.M.Ponga
33.K.Mani
34.T.Sekar
35.K.Ochappan
36.A.Annadurai
37.Pethanasamy
38.S.Chellapandi
39.M.Thangapandi
40.B.Anandan
41.B.Vijay
42.M.Sivasami
43.C.Mayan
44.Karunanithi
45.Chellapandian
46.M.Chandran
47.Mahalakshmi
48.Paraman
49.O.Chandran
50.M.Sivasami
51.O.Murugan
52.C.Manoharan
53.M.Parthiban
54.Selvam
55.Nagaraj
56.Jeyakumar
57.Subbiah
___________
Page 2 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD).No.15242 of 2012
58.S.Suresh
59.K.Elangovan
60.Annakodi
61.Sivankalai
62.Theivam
63.Pandiyan
64.Pandi
65.P.Selvam
66.S.Rajendran
67.Philip John
68.C.V.Eswaran
69.S.Annadurai
70.Muthu
71.Murugesan
72.C.Rasaiya
73.T.Raja Mani
74.Jeyam
75.Ammavasi
76.Chinnasamy
77.M.Sivandi
78.V.Rajendran
79.S.Rajendran
80.V.Selvaraj
81.P.Sekar
82.Jothi
83.C.Kasimayan
84.Perumal
85.Ponnaiah
86.S.Andisamy
87.C.Palpandi
88.Sivakumar
89.Panneerselvam
90.R.Sivanandi
91.P.Pandiyan
92.Periyakaruppan
___________
Page 3 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD).No.15242 of 2012
93.Murugesan
94.Asai Thambi
95.C.Eswaran
96.K.Jeyaraj
97.M.Sadayan
98.Mathialagan
99.M.Balaji
100.Selvam
101.Mayee
102.Rajamani
103.Ammavasi
104.Shanmuga Moorthy
105.Jeyapandi
106.Vengaiyan
107.Karthick Raja
108.R.Manickam
109.C.Balamurugan
110.Chinnan
111.Nagendiran
112.T.Pandiyammal .. Petitioner
Vs
1.The Government of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. by its Secretary,
Animal Husbandry, Dairying and Fisheries (FS3),
Chennai.
2.The Director of Fisheries,
DMS Campus,
Annasalai,
Thenampet,
Chennai – 600 006.
3.The Assistant Director of Fisheries,
Vaigai Dam,
Theni District. ... Respondents
___________
Page 4 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD).No.15242 of 2012
PRAYER: Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance
of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to the
G.O.(MS) No.165 dated 25.09.2012 passed by the 1st respondent, quash the same
and further to direct the respondents to permit the petitioners to continue the
present licensed fishing in and around Vaigai Dam.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Kathiravan
For Respondents : Mr.A.K.Manickam,
Standing Counsel for Government
ORDER
[Order of the Court was made by T.S.SIVAGNANAM, J.] Heard Mr.S.Kathiravan, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.A.K.Manickam, learned Standing Counsel for Government, appearing for the respondents.
2.The petitioner challenges G.O.(MS) No.165 dated 25.09.2012 passed by the 1st respondent, and seeks for a direction upon the respondents to permit the petitioners to continue the present licensed fishing in and around Vaigai Dam.
___________ Page 5 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P.(MD).No.15242 of 2012
3.It is submitted on either sides that an identical issue was adjudicated by the Division Bench in the case of the Director of Fisheries, Chennai and two others v. S.T.Mani and two others in W.A.(MD) Nos.1251 and 923 of 2020, dated 03.02.2021, and taking note of the Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.165, Animal Husbandry, Dairying and Fisheries (FS3) Department, dated 25.09.2012, the Writ Appeals were disposed of. The operative portion of the order reads as follows:
10.For the ensuing years, we call upon the official respondents, including the Secretary to Government, Fisheries Department, to adopt a different methodology as suggested by the learned Single Judge, by fixing the upset price and thereafter, call for tender. The highest amount offered by the successful bidder will have to be offered to the Bodi Fisherman Society. It is better to follow this methodology in future in all cases, as the Government would not loose the revenue and in any case, fixation of the upset price is a starting point and the same will not be the actual price that will fetch in an auction. It is a price, which will facilitate somebody to take part in the auction, being the minimum value of the subject matter of the licence.
11.The incidental issue is with respect to the impleaded respondents. On a perusal of the status report filed by respondent No. ___________ Page 6 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P.(MD).No.15242 of 2012 4, it is clear that various violations took place. These violations are with respect to contamination with the water and reaction to facilitate the highest fishing. The rights of the appellant in W.A. (MD)No.923 of 2020 is certainly subject to the rights of the impleaded respondent. Therefore, the official respondents shall make sure that their rights are not affected, which is inclusive of contaminating the water by polluting it for facilitating the larger capture of fishing and letting the water out, much to the suffering of the farmers. If such activities are carried on, the respondents are expected to cancel the licence.
12.There is one another issue which we need to consider. This is with respect to other living beings. The learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the official respondents will have to instruct the officials to make sure that the appellant in W.A. (MD)No.923 of 2020 shall not involve in any illegalities, by using crackers to shy away the birds, which go there to catch fish.
13.We find considerable force in the said submissions made.
The official respondents will make sure that the birds are not made to go away by the usage of crackers.
14.The official respondents shall undertake the exercise as aforesaid within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. If the appellant in W.A.(MD)No.923 of 2020 is not inclined to take the fishing rights, it can be brought up for ___________ Page 7 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P.(MD).No.15242 of 2012 auction.”
4.Thus, following the judgment in the said Writ Appeals, this Writ Petition is also disposed on the same lines. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
(T.S.S.,J.) (S.A.I.,J.)
15.07.2021
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
sj
Note :
In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the advocate/litigant concerned.
To
1.The Secretary, Animal Husbandry, Dairying and Fisheries (FS3), Government of Tamil Nadu, Chennai.
2.The Director of Fisheries, DMS Campus, Annasalai, Thenampet, Chennai – 600 006.
___________ Page 8 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P.(MD).No.15242 of 2012
3.The Assistant Director of Fisheries, Vaigai Dam, Theni District.
___________ Page 9 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P.(MD).No.15242 of 2012 T.S.SIVAGNANAM, J.
and S.ANANTHI, J.
sj W.P.(MD) No.15242 of 2012 15.07.2021 ___________ Page 10 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/