K.Pandi Vs The Director

PRAYER : Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the impugned order in Na.Ka.No. 1263/E/2022 dated 24.06.2025 issued by the 3rd respondent, quash the

¶15

_________Page 1 of 6

¶16

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

¶17

same as illegal and consequently directing the 3rd respondent to extend the petitioner's fishing right at Vettavan Kanmai, Jeyamangalam, Periyakulam Taluk, Theni District.

¶18

For Petitioner : Mr.B.Prasanna Vinoth For Respondents : Mr.S. Shanmugavel, Additional Government Pleader

¶19

ORDER

¶20

This writ petition is filed for Writ of Certiorarified

¶21

Mandamus to quash the impugned order dated 24.06.2025 issued by the 3rd respondent and consequently directing the 3rd respondent to extend the petitioner's fishing right.

¶22

The petitioner was granted fishing rights were effective from 01.07.2022, but, the respondents handed over the possession of the lake only on 04.11.2022. As a result, the petitioner lost fishing rights for a period of four months. Therefore, the petitioner is seeking an extension of the license period. Since the 3rd respondent handed over possession belatedly, the petitioner is entitled to a corresponding extension. The petitioner had already deposited the entire amount for the fishing rights

¶23

_________Page 2 of 6

¶24

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

¶25

before commencing fishing activity. Thus, the 3rd respondent deprived the petitioner's four months of fishing rights, therefore, the 3rd respondent ought to rectify the loss caused. This may be done either by refunding the amount corresponding to the four-month period or by allowing the petitioner to carry on fishing activities for an extended period of four months.

¶26

On instructions, the learned counsel appearing for the

¶27

respondents submitted that, based on the terms of the agreement, the petitioner is not entitled to any extension.

¶28

Considering the facts of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner cannot be made to suffer due to the belated handing over of possession by the respondents.

¶29

Accordingly, the impugned order dated 24.06.2025 issued

¶30

by the 3rd respondent is hereby quashed to that extent. The 3rd respondent is directed to allow the petitioner to exercise fishing rights for

¶31

_________Page 3 of 6

¶32

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

¶33

a further period of four months. The petitioner is strictly directed to hand over possession of the lake immediately after four months to the respondents.

¶34