K.Pandi v. The Director

Madras HC26 Jun 2025WP(MD)/17202/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Mandamus; fisheries lease; fishing right extension; Vettavan Kanmai lake; Jeyamangalam; Periyakulam Taluk; Theni District; belated handover in November; fasli-to-fasli contract period; representation dated 13.06.2025; rejection order dated 24.06.2025; writ petition closed as not entertainable; liberty to challenge impugned order; unjust enrichment not available as Government defence (obiter); Madurai Bench of Madras High Court; S. Srimathy J.; W.P(MD)No.17202 of 2025.

What did the court decide?

No substantive relief in the writ petition; petitioner granted liberty to challenge the impugned order dated 24.06.2025; no order as to costs; connected miscellaneous petition (W.M.P(MD)No.13070 of 2025) closed. ¶¶25

K.Pandi Vs The Director — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶25

Issue for consideration

Whether the writ petition seeking mandamus for extension of the fishing right, founded on the representation dated 13.06.2025, remains maintainable when the respondents rejected that representation by order dated 24.06.2025 before the petition could be admitted. +1 more

¶¶20

Court's answer

Since the respondents considered the petitioner's representation and rejected the request for extension by order dated 24.06.2025 before the writ petition could be taken up for admission, the writ petition cannot be entertained at this point of time and the petitioner ought to challenge the said impugned order.

¶¶20

Key takeaways

Where the contract period is from fasali to fasali, the handing over of the lake must also strictly adhere to the same fasali-to-fasali period; any delay in handing over affects the terms of the contract, and in such a case unjust enrichment cannot be used as a defence by the Government. This was expressed while closing the petition, with liberty reserved to the petitioner to challenge the impugned order, so the entitlement question was left open.obiter¶¶24

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition (Article 226, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, S. Srimathy J.) by a lessee fisherman seeking mandamus to the first respondent to extend his fishing right at Vettavan Kanmai, Jeyamangalam, Periyakulam Taluk, Theni District, based on his representation dated 13.06.2025, on the plea that although his agreement ran fasli to fasli, the lake was handed over only in November, causing him loss. Before admission, the respondents passed an order dated 24.06.2025 rejecting the request. Held: the writ petition cannot be entertained at this stage and the petitioner is at liberty to challenge the impugned order. The Court further observed that if the contract period is from fasali to fasali, the handing over of the lake must strictly adhere to the same period; any delay in handing over affects the contract terms, and unjust enrichment cannot be used as a defence by the Government. Writ petition closed; no costs; connected miscellaneous petition closed.

¶1

W.P(MD)No.17202 of 2025

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 26.06.2025

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SRIMATHY

¶6

W.P(MD)No.17202 of 2025 and W.M.P(MD)No.13070 of 2025

¶7

K.Pandi ... Petitioner

¶8

Vs.

¶9

The Director, Fisheries and Fisherman Welfare Department, Government of Tamil Nadu, Chennai.

¶10

The Deputy Director, Fisheries and Fisherman Welfare Department, Madurai Region, Madurai.

¶11

The Assistant Director, Fisheries and Fisherman Welfare Department, Vaigai Basin, Theni District. ... Respondents

¶12

PRAYER : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the first respondent to extend the petitioner's fishing right at Vettavan Kanmai, Jeyamangalam, Periyakulam Taluk, Theni District, based on the representation of the petitioner dated 13.06.2025.

¶13

1/4

¶14

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶15

W.P(MD)No.17202 of 2025

¶16

For Petitioner : Mr.B.Prasanna Vinoth For Respondents : Mr.M.Senthil Ayyanar Government Advocate

¶17

ORDER

¶18

The present Writ Petition has been filed for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the first respondent to extend the petitioner's fishing right at Vettavan Kanmai, Jeyamangalam, Periyakulam Taluk, Theni District, based on the representation of the petitioner dated 13.06.2025.

¶19

The contention of the petitioner is that even though agreement was executed for fasli to fasli, the respondents handed over the lake belatedly i.e., in the month of November only. Therefore, the petitioner has suffered a loss.

¶20

However, before the writ petition could be taken up for admission, the respondents considered the petitioner's representation and passed an order, dated 24.06.2025, rejecting the petitioner's request for extension. Therefore, at this point of time, the writ petition cannot be entertained and the petitioner ought to challenge the said impugned order.

¶21

2/4

¶22

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶23

W.P(MD)No.17202 of 2025

¶24

However, this Court is of the considered opinion that if the contract period is from fasali to fasali, then handing over the lake must also strictly adhere to the same fasli to fasli. Any delay in handing over will affect the terms of the contract, and in such a case, unjust enrichment cannot be used as a defense by the Government. The petitioner is at liberty to challenge the said impugned order.

¶25

4. Accordingly, this Writ Petition stands closed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶26

26.06.2025

¶27

NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes

¶28

jbr

¶29

3/4

¶30

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis