Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 48199
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S. Srimathy, J
K.Pandi – Appellant
Versus
The Director Fisheries and Fisherman Welfare Department, Government of Tamil Nadu, Chennai – Respondent
W.P.(MD) No. 17679 of 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.B.Prasanna Vinoth
For the Respondents: Mr.S. Shanmugavel, Additional Government Pleader
The delay in possession transfer by authorities necessitates a corresponding extension of rights to prevent unjust loss for the petitioner.
Headnote:This writ petition addresses the extension of fishing rights after a delay in possession handover by the Fisheries Department. The petitioner asserts entitlement to an extension due to loss incurred from the delay. The Court quashed the impugned order and instructed the extension of fishing rights for an additional four months. The central questions include the legitimacy of the delay and the entitlement to remedy. The Court concluded that the petitioner should not suffer from the administrative delays, granting an extension of fishing rights accordingly.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. entitlement to extension due to administrative delay. (Para 2) |
| 2. petitioner's argument against the denial of extension. (Para 3) |
| 3. court's reasoning against the unjust loss. (Para 4) |
| 4. order to quash and extend fishing rights. (Para 5) |
THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE S.SRIMATHY W.P.(MD) No. 17679 of 2025 and W.M.P(MD)Nos.13511 & 13512 of 2025 K.Pandi ... Petitioner Vs.
1. The Director Fisheries and Fisherman Welfare Department, Government of Tamil Nadu, Chennai.
2. The Deputy Director, Fisheries and Fisherman Welfare Department, Madurai Region, Madurai.
3. The Assistant Director, Fisheries and Fisherman Welfare Department, Vaigai Basin, Theni District. ... Respondents 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 same as illegal and consequently directing the 3rd respondent to extend the petitioner's fishing right at Vettavan Kanmai, Jeyamangalam, Periyakulam Taluk, Theni District.
For Petitioner : Mr.B.Prasanna Vinoth For Respondents : Mr.S. Shanmugavel, Additional Government Pleader
ORDER
This writ petition is filed for Writ of Certiorarified 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.
2. 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 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.
3. On instructions, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that, based on the terms of the agreement, the petitioner is not entitled to any extension.
4. 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.
5. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 24.06.2025 issued by the 3rd respondent is hereby quashed to that extent. The 3rd respondent is directed to allow the petitioner to exercise fishing rights for 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.
6. With these observations, this writ petition is allowed.
No Costs. Consequently, connected petitions are closed.
