Writ appeals and petition challenging orders on Panchayat auction of fishing rights were disposed of. The Court directed the appellant to seek remedy regarding a Government Order transferring maintenance duties from Panchayat to Public Works Department in a pending petition.
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.
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 06.02.2024
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN
W.A(MD)Nos.569 to 571 of 2008 and
W.P(MD)No.4196 of 2007
... Petitioner/Appellant in W.A(MD) No.569 of 2008
...Petitioner/Appellant in W.A(MD) Nos.570 and 571 of 2008
(Substitution is ordered and T.V.R.Ramadoss is substituted in the place of V.Shanmuganatha Pandian as per orders of this Court made in C.M.P(MD)Nos.16677, 16680 and 16681 of 2023 in W.A(MD) Nos.569 to 571 of 2008, dated 06.02.2024)
.Vs.
1.The District Collector,
1/10
....Respondents/Respondents in W.A(MD)No.569 of 2008
(Respondents 5 and 6 are impleaded as per common order of this Court made in M.P(MD)Nos.1,1 and 1 of 2012 in W.A.Nos.569 to 571 of 2008, dated 12.11.2013)
2/10
(Respondents 3 and 4 are impleaded as per common order of this Court made in M.P(MD)Nos.1,1 and 1 of 2012 in W.A.Nos.569 to 571 of 2008, dated 12.11.2013) ....Respondents/Respondents
3/10
(Respondents 3 and 4 are impleaded as per common order of this Court made in M.P(MD)Nos.1,1 and 1 of 2012 in W.A.Nos.569 to 571 of 2008, dated 12.11.2013) ....Respondents/Respondents
....Respondents/Respondents in W.A(MD)No.571 of 2008
W.P(MD)No.4196 of 2007
Sookkanmai Pasana Ayakkattutharkal, Chennagarampatti, Melur Taluk, Madurai District, through its President, C.Veeranan @ Krishnan
...Petitioner
/vs/
1.The District Collector, Madurai District, Madurai.-20.
3.The President, Chennagarampatti Village Panchayat, Melur Taluk, Madurai District.
...Respondents
4/10
COMMON PRAYER in WRIT APPEALS: Writ Appeals filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent Act praying this Court to set aside the orders passed by this Court made in W.P.Nos.5269 of 2006, 4515 of 2004 and 4293 OF 2004, dated 12.08.2008.
PRAYER IN W.P(MD)No.4196 of 2007 : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of the first respondent in his proceedings in Na.Ka.No.1123/2006/A6, dated 20.04.2007 and to quash the same and consequently to direct the Petitioner Ayakkatuthars alone are entitled to the fishery right in the subject matter Sookkanmai situatedin Chennagarampatti Village of Melur Taluk, Madurai Distrct.
For Appellant : Mr.R.Suriya Narayanan in all W.As’ and Petitioner in W.P (MD)No.4196 of 2007 For Respondents : Mr.A.K.Manikkam, in all W.As’ and Spl.Govt. Pleader for Respondents 1 and 2 in W.P(MD) No.4196 of 2007
5/10
COMMON JUDGMENT
DR.G.JAYACHANDRAN,J. AND C.KUMARAPPAN,J.
These Writ Appeals and Writ Petition are preferred by the President of Water Users Association challenging the auction notice in respect of fishing right in the water body falling within the territorial jurisdiction of the respective Panchayats.
2.As a user of water in the water body, the right of fishing was also claimed by the appellants as well as the Writ Petitioner, wherein, the Local Body Authorities contested that as a person responsible for the protection of the natural resources under the statute, they have every right to auction the fishing rights.
3.This matter is dealt with in extensive by the learned Single Judge and considering the privy of the Tamil Nadu Panchayat Act 1984, particularly, Section 133 which deals about maintenance of irrigation work, execution of Kudimaramathu etc vis-a-vis, the right of the Association of the water users, had dismissed the Writ Petitions as misconceived. Challenging the same, the Writ 6/10
Appeals are filed. In the meanwhile, Government has passed G.O.No.16,Public Works(W-2) Department, dated 14.01.2011, wherein, the right and responsibility to maintain water body has been taken from the Panchayat and divested with the Public Works Department. When the Government Order was challenged, the learned Single Judge of this Court, had upheld the validity of the Government Order in the order made in W.P(MD)No.6840 of 2012 etc.
4.In the light of the above facts and pronouncement, the learned Single Judge dismissed the Writ Petitions. The learned counsel for the Petitioner states that he has preferred the above Writ Petition challenging the Government Order in G.O.No.16,Public Works(W-2) Department, dated 14.01.2011 and the same is still pending.
5.Therefore, this Court is of the view that it it is so, the appellant can work out his remedy in the manner known to lawe.
6.With the above observation, the Writ Appeals stands disposed of. In view of the disposal of the above Writ Appeals, nothing survives for adjudication in the
7/10
Writ Petition and therefore, the Writ Petition stands dismissed. There is no order
as to costs.
[G.J.,J.] [C.K.,J.] 06.02.2024
NCS : Yes/No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No vsn To
W.A(MD)Nos.569 to 571 of 2008
8/10
St.George Fort, Chennai-9.
W.P(MD)No.4196 of 2007
9/10
DR.G.JAYACHANDRAN, J. and C.KUMARAPPAN,J.
vsn
COMMON JUDGMENT MADE IN
W.A(MD)Nos.569 to 571 of 2008 and W.P(MD)No.4196 of 2007
06.02.2024
10/10
Nanjai Pattatharigal Sangam
Batlagundu Pattatharigal Sangam
Sookkanmai Pasana Ayakkattutharkal
District Collector, Dindigul District
District Collector, Madurai District
Commissioner, Batlagundu Panchayat Union
G.JAYACHANDRAN
C.KUMARAPPAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
