This order dismissed a writ petition challenging the permanent ban on fishing rights in Singanallur Tank due to its declaration as a Biodiversity Zone. The court held that the authorities had the power to ban fishing for ecological reasons and the petitioner had no absolute right to the lease.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
W.P.No.664 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 07.06.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI
W.P.No.664 of 2020 and
WMP.No.774 of 2020
M.Jegan, (Membership No.476).
...Petitioner
Vs.
Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the 1st respondent relating to Singanallur Tank in proceedings bearing Na.Ka.No. 10417/2018/E4 dated 13.08.2019, quash the same as illegal and forbearing the respondents herein from interfering with the possession of the Singanallur lake.
1/10
W.P.No.664 of 2020
For Petitioner : Mr.C.Deepak Kumar For Respondent : Mr.P.Sathish, AGP, for R1 : Mr.K.Magesh, for R2
O R D E R
This Writ petition has been filed seeking quashment of the proceedings of the 1st respondent dated 13.08.2019 bearing Na.Ka.No.10417 /2018/E4, relating to Singanallur Tank and to consequently, forbear the respondents from interfering with the possession of the Singanallur lake.
2/10
W.P.No.664 of 2020
the 4th respondent society for a period of five years and the petitioner being the member of the 4th respondent society, is exercising his fishing rights in the above said tank and the said fishing rights was subsequently renewed for a further period of five years and the same got expired on 31.12.2018, however, the 1st respondent failed to renew the same thereafter. Thereby, the 4th respondent society members gave representations to the 1st and 2nd respondents seeking renewal of lease in respect of the Singanallur Tank in favour of the 4th respondent society and its members, upon receipt of which, the 1st respondent, vide proceedings dated 13.08.2019 bearing Na.Ka.No.10417/18/E4, allotted 11 tanks to the 4th respondent society and banned the right of fisheries in the Singanallur Tank, without any reason. Challenging the same, the petitioner has come up with this Writ petition.
3/10
W.P.No.664 of 2020
members from carrying on their livelihood. He further submitted that, the respondents failed to analyse the Biodiversity Act, as the main objective of the said Act is to safeguard the Biological resources, i.e, plants, animals ad micro-organisms or parts thereof, their genetic material and by-products (excluding value added products) with actual or potential use or value, but does not include human genetic material and he placed reliance upon Section 41(1) of the said Act . It is the submission of the learned counsel that, the District Collector is not vested with any power to declare any of the Tank as Bio-diversity tank and none of the provisions of the Bio-diversity Act prevents the fishing rights of the common people. While so, refusing to grant fishing rights to the petitioner community members is not sustainable. Hence, he prayed for appropriate orders.
W.P.No.664 of 2020
Zone” in July 2017. Hence, to conserve the biodiversity in Singanallur Tank and to safeguard the “Urban Biodiversity Conservation Zone” in letter and spirit, the 1st respondent permanently banned to renew the fishing rights lease of Singanallur Tank to the 4th respondent society. He further submitted that, the present impugned order of the 1st respondent does not prevent the 4th respondent society's entire fishing rights, and the fishing rights was restricted only in respect of Singanallur Taluk, however, the 4th respondent was granted fishing rights in respect of 11 other tanks. He further more submitted that, this Court, vide order dated 29.04.2019 made in W.P.No.12666 of 2019, directed the respondents to take necessary action to see that fishing is not done on commercial basis and further directed the respondents to implement the proceedings of the 1st respondent dated 14.08.2018 in letter and spirit and the respondents have not violated any of the Revenue Standing orders and the impugned order is perfectly in order. Hence, he prayed for dismissal of this Writ petition.
5/10
W.P.No.664 of 2020
6/10
W.P.No.664 of 2020
W.P.No.664 of 2020
Department, it is equally within the domain of the appropriate authority, for
reasons to be recorded, to ban fishing in a particular tank.
given the lease and in the absence of any provision, placed before this Court, which bars the District Collector to pass such order banning fishing activity in Singanallur tank by declaring it as a Bio-diversity Zone, the claim of the petitioner that the petitioner and his society is entitled to get fishing rights in the Singanallur tank is wholly misconceived.
costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous petition is closed.
07.06.2023
skt
NCC : Yes / No Speaking Order : Yes / No Index : Yes / No
8/10
W.P.No.664 of 2020
To
9/10
W.P.No.664 of 2020
M.DHANDAPANI., J.
skt
W.P.No.664 of 2020
and WMP.No.774 of 2020
07.06.2023
10/10
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the District Collector could permanently ban fishing rights in Singanallur Tank by declaring it a Biodiversity Zone.
Whether the Banning of fishing violates the right of the petitioner community under RSO 211.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
W.P.No.12666 of 2019Referred¶34
3 provisions across 3 enactments
M.Jegan
The District Collector, Coimbatore
The Commissioner, Coimbatore City Municipal Corporation
The Assistant Director of Fisheries, Veerappan Chatram, Erode
K-1629, Kovai Vatta Meenavar Kooturavu Sangam
M.DHANDAPANI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
