N.Paneerselvam v. The Executive Engineer

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 16.08.2016

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SATHYANARAYANAN W.P.No.28458 of 2016 and WMP.Nos.24566 and 24567 of 2016 N.Paneerselvam ..

Petitioner vs.

1.The Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, LPB Division, Kancheepuram.

2.The Assistant Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, LPB Division, Padappai, Chengalpet District.

3.The Assistant Engineer, Public Works Department, Irrigation Division, WRO Padappi-601 301.

4.The Village Administrative Officer, 24, Thiruneermalai Village, Pallavaram Taluk, Kancheepuram District.

..

Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to the Auction Notice of the third respondent in Letter No./Kho.Meen Mahasool dated 28.07.2016 and to quash the same.

For Petitioner :

Mr.L.Chandrakumar For Respondents :

Mr.R.Govindasamy, Special Government Pleader

O R D E R

By consent, this Writ Petition is taken up for final disposal.

2. The petitioner would state that he is the successful bidder for finishing rights in respect of Thiruneermalai Eri (Lake) on the basis of the auction notice dated 07.05.2014 and the second respondent, vide proceedings dated 19.05.2014 in Letter No.Kho.2/padappai/2014 has granted licence in favour of the petitioner for a period of three years, which expire during May 2017. The grievance expressed by the petitioner is that all of a sudden, without putting the petitioner on notice, the impugned auction notice has been issued calling upon the intending bidders to submit their bid on or before 10.08.2016 and in that event, the rights of the petitioner will definitely be affected and hence, came forward with this writ petition.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that even as per the proceedings of the second respondent dated 19.05.2014, renewal, as a matter of right, has been granted till the expiry of period of 3 years and as on today, the petitioner is not in arrears of any licence fee and since the impugned order per se is in violation of the principles of natural justice, prays for setting aside the impugned order.

4. Per contra, Mr.R.Govindasamy, learned Special Government Pleader accepts notice on behalf of the respondents 1 to 4 and on instructions would submit that as per the Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.332, Animal Husbandry and Fisheries (FS.IV) Department dated 17.11.1993, preference will be given to the Cooperative Societies in public auction with priority to inland Fish farmers Development Agencies, Inland/Marine Fishermen Cooperative Societies and since the petitioner is an individual, the second respondent thought fit to issue the impugned auction notice and prays for dismissal of the writ petition.

5. This Court has considered the rival submissions and also perused the materials placed before it.

6. Admittedly, the petitioner was the successful bidder in respect of fishing rights and as per the proceedings of the second respondent dated 19.05.2014, he was granted licence for a period of 3 years and it expire during May 2017 and without putting the petitioner on notice whatsoever, the impugned auction notice came to be issued and therefore, impliedly terminating the licence granted to the petitioner. In the considered opinion of the Court, the impugned order visits the petitioner with grave civil consequences and it came to be

passed without putting the petitioner on notice and on the sole ground, the impugned order warrants interference.

7. In the result, this Writ Petition is partly allowed and the impugned proceedings of the third respondent in Letter No./Kho.Meen Mahasool dated 28.07.2016 is set aside and the matter is once again remanded to the second respondent, who shall issue notice to the petitioner as to the cancellation of the licence, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and the petitioner, on receipt of the same, shall submit his response to the second respondent within a period of two weeks thereafter and the second respondent, on receipt of the reply from the petitioner, is directed to consider the same and pass orders in accordance with law within a further period of four weeks thereafter and till such time, the rights of the petitioner in terms of the proceedings of the second respondent dated 19.05.2014 shall not be disturbed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CCC) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar To 1.The Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, LPB Division, Kancheepuram.

2.The Assistant Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, LPB Division, Padappai, Chengalpet District.

3.The Assistant Engineer, Public Works Department, Irrigation Division, WRO Padappi-601 301.

4.The Village Administrative Officer, 24, Thiruneermalai Village, Pallavaram Taluk, Kancheepuram District.

+1cc to Mr.L.Chandrakumar, Advocate Sr.46796 W.P.No.28458 of 2016 vd[co] srg 02/09/2016