W.P.(MD)Nos.1669, 2051, 2417 and 3175 of 2013 and M.P.(MD)Nos.1,1,1 and 1 of 2013
W.P.(MD)No.1669/2013:
P.Karthick : Petitioner
Vs. 1.The Director of Fisheries, Fisheries Department (Inland), Administrative Buildings, D.M.S. Compound, Teynampet, Chennai-600 006.
2.The Assistant Director, Fisheries Department (Inland), Petchiamman Padithurai, Madurai-625 001.
3.The District Collector, Madurai District, Collectorate, Madurai-625 020. : Respondents
W.P.(MD)No.2051/2013:
P.Baskaran : Petitioner
vs.
The Assistant Director, Fisheries Department, Inland Fisheries,
Pechiyamman Padithurai,
Madurai-625 001. : Respondent
W.P.(MD)No.2417/2013:
N.K.Selventhiran : Petitioner
vs.
1.The Director of Fisheries, Fisheries Department (Inland), Administrative Buildings,
D.M.S.Compound,
Teynampet, Chennai-600 006. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶6

¶7

2.The Assistant Director, Fisheries Department (Inland), Petchiamman Padithurai, Madurai-625 001. 3.S.Samayan [R-3 impleaded as per the order of this Court dated 05.03.2013 in M.P.(MD)No.2 of 2013] : Respondents W.P.(MD)No.3175/2013: R.Vetripandiyan : Petitioner vs.

¶8

1.The Director of Fisheries, O/o. Director of Fisheries, D.M.S.Compound, Teynampet, Chennai-600 006.

¶9

2.The Assistant Director of Fisheries, (Inland Fisheries) Madurai, O/o. Assistant Director of Fisheries, (Inland Fisheries), Madurai, Petchiamman Padithurai, Madurai-625 001. : Respondents

¶10

PRAYER in W.P.(MD)No1669/2013:: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issue of a Writ of Mandamus, forbearing the respondents from conducting Fishery Rights Lease to the Tanks situated in Madurai District for the present pasali year 2012-2013 and consequently, direct the respondents to issue Public Fishing Rights Lease Auction Notification for the year 2013-2014 as per Tamil Nadu Transparency in Tenders Act, 1998 and Rules, 2000, so far as the Tanks situated in Madurai District are concerned.

¶11

PRAYER in W.P.(MD)No.2051/2013 :: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issue of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondent to open the tender at Madurai itself and consequently, permit the petitioner to be present at the time of opening of tender in respect of Serial No.2 & 25 of Tender Notification made in Na.Ka.No.1186/E/12-1, dated 18.01.2013.

¶12

PRAYER in W.P.(MD)No.2417/2013:: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issue of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to issue confirmation order in favour of petitioner name based on the bid amount quoted in the Fishing Rights Tender Application for the years 2012-2015 in respect of Ayyavaithan Tank, Ayyan Pappakudi Village, Madurai District.

¶13

PRAYER in W.P.(MD)No.3175/2013:: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issue of a Writ of Mandamus, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ directing the second respondent to consider and pass orders in respect of petitioner's tender form dated 04.02.2013 in pursuant to the proceedings in Na.Ka.No.1186/E/12-1, dated 18.01.2013 on the file of the second

¶14

¶15

respondent pertaining to lease of fishing in "Ayyavaithan Tank" situated in Ayan Pappakudi Village, Maduria South Taluk, Madurai District.

¶16

For Petitioners : Mr.M.Saravanakumar in W.P.(MD)Nos.1669 & 2417/2013 For Petitioner in : Mr.A.Srinivasan W.P.(MD)No.2051/2013 For Petitioner in : Mr.K.K.Kannan W.P.(MD)No.3175/2013 For Respondents : Mr.M.Alagathevan, Special Government Pleader For Respondent No.3 : Mr.P.Arun Jayatram in W.P.(MD)No.2417/2013

¶17

COMMON ORDER

¶18

¶19

These Writ Petitions are clearly an eye opener as to how the Government officials are auctioning the State largesse without safeguarding the interest of Government.

¶20

The Writ Petitions relate to the auction conducted by the Assistant Director, Fisheries Department, Madurai, to confer the fishing rights in respect of the tanks situated at Madurai, Melur and Thirumangalam in the district of Madurai.

¶21

The Assistant Director, Fisheries Department published a notification on 22 January, 2013 proposing to conduct an auction to lease out the fishing rights. According to the petitioners, the Assistant Director incorporated an onerous condition in the auction notification that the bidder should be personally present during the time of scrutiny and in case he failed, his bid will not be opened and the EMD will be forfeited. Even though the petitioners submitted bids, none of those bids were opened under the pretext that the bidders failed to turn up during the time of scrutiny. This made them to file Writ Petitions alleging that in spite of quoting higher amount, bids were confirmed in favour of those who have quoted a very low amount.

¶22

These Writ Petitions are connected to an earlier Writ Petition filed by a bidder challenging the very same notification. While issuing notice to the respondents, I have stayed the condition with respect to the forfeiture of EMD amount, on failure to appear during the time of scrutiny. Notwithstanding the interim order granted by me, the Assistant Director, Fisheries Department proceeded with the auction process and accepted the bid of ng the offer made by the petitioner in W.P.(MD)No.2417 of 2013, for a sum of Rs.14,55,500/-.

¶23

The Assistant Director, Fisheries Department, Madurai produced the minutes of the auction conducted on 05 February, 2013 and 06 February, 2013 at the officone S.Samayan, with respect to Ayyavaithan tank, ignorie of the Director of Fisheries, Chennai. The minutes of the auction notification clearly shows that the amount quoted by the other bidders were rejected on a flimsy reason that they were absent during the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ time of scrutiny, notwithstanding the fact that they quoted very high amount. The Ayyavaithan tank was given for a sum of Rs.1,71,000/-,

¶24

¶25

notwithstanding the receipt of offers for a sum of Rs.7,27,000/-, Rs.8,70,000/-, Rs.10,00,000/- and Rs.14,55,500/-. The offer made by Mr.S.Samayan for a sum of Rs.1,71,000/- was accepted. The petitioner in W.P.(MD)No.3175 of 2013 also made a grievance that his bid for a sum of Rs.50,00,000/- was not accepted by the Assistant Director on the ground that he was not present.

¶26

Since the petitioner in W.P.(MD)No.3175 of 2013 offered a sum of Rs.50,00,000/-, I have given him time to produce the demand draft. Since he was absent during the subsequent hearing, this Court issued a bailable warrant to ensure his presence. However, he failed to produce the demand draft, in spite of his appearance on warrant. In the meantime, the petitioner in W.P.(MD)No.2417 of 2013 produced a demand draft for a sum of Rs.14,55,500/- and the same was accepted and he was given the lease in respect of Ayyavaithan tank. Subsequently, the petitioner in W.P.(MD)No.3175 of 2013 produced a demand draft for a sum of Rs.25,00,000/- being 50% of the amount offered by him. Since the bid submitted by the petitioner in W.P.(MD)No.2417 of 2013 for a sum of Rs.14,55,500/- has already been accepted, I expressed my difficulty to accept the said offer for a sum of Rs.50,00,000/- and returned the demand draft.

¶27

This incident clearly shows that the Assistant Director auctioned the privilege for a very low amount, in spite of his clear knowledge that there were other bidders who quoted substantially higher amount.

¶28

Since the petitioner in W.P.(MD)No.3175 of 2013 agreed to pay Rs.50,00,000/- for the Ayyavaithan tank and produced a demand draft for a sum of Rs.25,00,000/-, I have directed the petitioner in W.P.(MD) No.2417 of 2013 to submit his response. The lease was given for a period of three years. In case Rs.14,55,500/- is prescribed as the annual fee, the lessee would get renewal by increasing the amount for the succeeding two years proportionately. That would be a very low amount, in the light of the offer of Rs.50,00,000/- made by the petitioner in W.P.(MD)No.3175 of 2013. Subsequently, the petitioner in W.P.(MD)No.2417 of 2013 filed an undertaking affidavit agreeing to restrict the lease for a period of one year. The said affidavit is recorded. The Assistant Director is at liberty to auction the Ayyavaithan tank, after the expiry of the present Fasli year.

¶29

The Assistant Director, Fisheries Department (Inland), Petchiamman Padithurai, Madurai, is directed to issue the order giving licence to the petitioner in W.P.(MD)No.2417 of 2013, so as to enable him to enjoy the fishing right in respect of Ayyavaithan tank for the first Fasli year. The licence should clearly indicate that he is not eligible for renewal. After the expiry of licence period, steps should be taken for fresh auction.

¶30

Insofar as the Writ Petition in W.P.(MD)No.1669 of 2013 is concerned, after reserving the Writ Petition for orders, the learned counsel for the petitioner made an endorsement on 14 March, 2013, indicating that he is withdrawing the Writ Petition. Accordingly, the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ said Writ Petition is dismissed as withdrawn. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed. No costs.

¶31

¶32

The Superintendent of Police, Madurai, is directed to instruct the Jurisdictional Inspector of Police, to give protection to the petitioner in W.P.(MD)No.2417 of 2013, to undertake the fishing activities and to harvest the fish, in view of the dispute between the bidders, in connection with the auction of Ayyavaithan Tank, situated at Ayanpappakudi Village, Madurai District. Liberty is given to the petitioner to approach the police for protection.

¶33

The Writ Petitions in W.P.(MD)Nos.2051, 2417 and 3175 of 2013 are disposed of with the above direction. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. No costs.

¶34

SML Sd/Deputy Registrar /True Copy/ Assistant Registrar To 1.The Director of Fisheries, Fisheries Department (Inland), Administrative Buildings, D.M.S. Compound, Teynampet, Chennai-600 006. 2.The Assistant Director, Fisheries Department (Inland), Petchiamman Padithurai, Madurai-625 001. 3.The District Collector, Madurai District, Collectorate, Madurai-625 020. 4.The Superintendent of Police, Madurai. +1 cc to M/s. M.Saravana Kumar, Advocate SR.No.22011. +1 cc to M/s.K.K.Kannan, Advocate SR.No.22012.

¶35

Common Order made in W.P.(MD)Nos.1669, 2051, 2417 and 3175 of 2013 Dated:18.04.2013

¶36

5P/7C

¶37

RPB 18.04.2013 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

P.Karthick, v. the Director of Fisheries

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

P.Karthick, v. the Director of Fisheries

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

V. Soundaravalli Vs the District Collector

M/S. Vasantham Catering, Vs the Senior Divisional

M. Sappani @ Ramasami Servai, Vs Tamil Nadu Water Supply and

Packiam, Vs the District Collector

M. Subbiah, Vs the Superintending Engineer

K. Sibi Chakkaravarthy, Vs the Managing Director