Partly allowed

R.K Raja, v. the Director of Fisheries

Madras HC27 Jul 2015WP(MD)/4030/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench heard three writ petitions regarding auction of fishing rights in Viradhanoor Tank. It dismissed two petitions as infructuous due to the expiry of the impugned order. It held the third petition and directed respondents to follow rules for a public auction.

What did the court decide?

W.P.(MD)Nos.4030 and 5204 dismissed as infructuous; W.P(MD)No.9255 allowed directing officials to conduct a public auction according to rules.

R.K Raja, Vs the Director of Fisheries — Public Procurement and Tenders | Madras HC (2015)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 27.07.2015

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.MAHADEVAN

¶6

Writ Petition (MD) Nos.4030, 5204 and 9255 of 2015

¶7

R.K.Raja ... Petitioner in W.P(MD)No.4030 of 2015 K.Ramadoss ... Petitioner in W.P(MD)No.5204 of 2015 Madurai Taluk Fisherman Co.Operative Society, (South) A2407, represented by its President, P.Jeyaraman, A-43, Byepass Road, Avaniyapuram, Madurai 12 ... Petitioner in W.P(MD)No.9255 of 2015 Vs. 1.The Director of Fisheries, Inland Fisheries, DMS Compound, Teynampet, Chennai. 2.The Assistant Director of Fisheries, Inland Fisheries, Pechiyammanpadithurai, Madurai. 3.The President, Inland Fisheries Co-operative Society, South Taluk, Madurai District. ... Respondents in W.P.Nos.4030 and 5204 of 2015 1.The District Collector Collector, Madurai District. 2.The Assistant Director of Fisheries, O/o.The Assistant Director of Fisheries, Fisheries Department, Petchiamman Padithurai, Madurai -1. 3.The Tahsildar, Madurai South Taluk Office, Madurai South, Madurai District. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4.R.K.Raja 5.K.Ramadoss ... Respondents in W.P.No.9255/2015

¶8

¶9

Prayer in W.P(MD)Nos.4030 and 5204 of 2015: Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the proceedings of the 2^nd respondent made in Na.Ka.No.985/E/14-2, dated 11.03.2015 and quash the same and consequently direct the 1^st and 2^nd respondents to conduct the public auction for Viradhanoor Tank.

¶10

Prayer in W.P(MD)No.9255 of 2015: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to the impugned order in Na.Ka.No.A2/3550/2015, dated 02.06.2015 on the file of the respondent No.3 and quash the same as illegal and consequently to direct the respondents to extent the fishing rights of the petitioner for a period of 1 year in Viradhanoor Tank, Viradhanoor, Madurai District within the time stipulated by this Court.

¶11

For Petitioners : Mr.J.M.Abdul Rahman, (In W.P.Nos.4030 and 5204/2015) For Petitioner : Mr.T.Lajapathi Roy (In W.P(MD)No.9255 of 2015) For 3^rd Respondent : Mr.T.Lajapathi Roy (In W.P(MD)No.4030 of 2015)

¶12

For Respondents : Mr.S.Sadeeshkumar, AGP (1-3 in W.P(MD)No.9255/2015, 1&2 in W.P(MD)No.4030/2015 1&2 in W.P(MD)No.5204/2015)

¶13

For Respondents 4&5 : No Appearance (In W.P(MD)No.9255 of 2015)

¶14

COMMON ORDER

¶15

Since the issue involved is common in all the writ petitions, they are taken up together and disposed of by a common order.

¶16

2.Challenging the order passed by the second respondent in Na.Ka.No.985/E/14-2, dated 11.03.2015, W.P(MD)Nos.4030 and 5204 of 2015 have been filed.

¶17

3.W.P(MD)No.9255 of 2015 has been filed seeking to quash the order passed by the third respondent dated 02.06.2015 and consequently direct the respondents to extent the fishing rights of the petitioner for a period of one year in Viradhanoor Tank, Viradhanoor, Madurai District.

¶18

4.When the matter came up for hearing, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that for fishing rights in the respective kanmois, the impugned order dated 11.03.2015 came to be passed for the period upto 30.06.2015 and since the period itself is over, W.P.(MD)Nos.4030 and 5204 of 2015 have become infructuous. He has also made an endorsement to that effect.

¶19

5.In view of the same, W.P.(MD)Nos.4030 and 5204 of 2015 are https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ dismissed as infructuous.

¶20

6.So far as W.P(MD)No.9255 of 2015 is concerned, the parties

¶21

¶22

mutually agreed to go for a public auction as per the rules as well as the relevant Government Orders.

¶23

7.In such view of the matter, the writ petition is disposed of directing the official respondents to go for a public auction following the rules as well as the respective Government Orders and it is always open to the petitioners as well as the interested parties to participate in the auction. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶24

Sd/-

¶25

Assistant Registrar(AS)

¶26

/True copy/

¶27

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶28

¶29

1.The Director of Fisheries, Inland Fisheries, DMS Compound, Teynampet, Chennai. 2.The Assistant Director of Fisheries, Inland Fisheries, Pechiyammanpadithurai, Madurai. 3.The President, Inland Fisheries Co-Operative Society, South Taluk, Madurai District. 4.The District Collector Collector, Madurai District. 5.The Assistant Director of Fisheries, O/o.The Assistant Director of Fisheries, Fisheries Department, Petchiamman Padithurai, Madurai -1. 6.The Tahsildar, Madurai South Taluk Office, Madurai South, Madurai District. +two cc to Mr.T.Lajapathi Roy, Advocate in SR.No.41908/15&41909/15 +one cc to M/s. N.Mohideen Basha, Advocate in SR.No.41787/15 +one cc to The Special Government Pleader in SR.No.41985/15 Writ Petition (MD) Nos.4030, 5204 and 9255 of 2015 27.07.2015

¶30

CSL/11.08.2015 3P/11C

¶31

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

R.K Raja, v. the Director of Fisheries

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R.K Raja, v. the Director of Fisheries

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S. Vedanta Limited Vs the Deputy Commissioner(Smr)

M/S. Raja Enterprises, Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Periyasamy, Vs the Commissioner

V. Muneeswaran, Vs the Inspector General

Lakshmi W/O Arumugam, Vs the District Collector

K.Imbran, Vs State of Tamil Nadu, Repd. by