- (1.) THIMMAPURAM Village Panchayat, represented by its Vice President, Thimmapuram Village and Post, Krishnagiri Taluk and District, has challenged the order of the Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, Upper Penniyar Vadinilakkottam, Dharampuri, third respondent herein in proceedings No.Ko.2334/07/THA4/MI.Pa.Ka.Kri.Vattam/13, dated 13.07.2007, signed on 19.07.2007 and consequently, prayed for a direction to respondents 1 to 4 and 6, to grant lease of fishing rights of Thimmapuram Village Lake, Krishnagiri Taluk and District, in favour of Thimmapuram Panchayat, on the ground that it has got a preferential right.
(2.) THE deponent is the Vice President of the abovesaid Panchayat. It is the case of the Vice President that fishing right was leased out for a period of three years from 10.10.2005 to 10.10.2008, in favour of Kaveripattinam Parvatharajakula Meenavar Kotturavu Sangam, Barur, represented by the Inspector of Fisheries/Special Officer, Krishnagiri District, fifth respondent herein. By way of public auction, it was given in favour of one Mrs.T.Rathidevi, for a sum of Rs.22,05,000/-. The abovesaid amount was credited into Village accounts and that the same was spent for various developmental works for the welfare of the Village. The petitioner has further submitted that as per G.O.Ms.No.332, Animal Husbandry and Fisheries Department, dated 17.11.1993, preferential right has been given to the Society and Panchayat. According to the petitioner, willingness of the Panchayat should have been obtained before granting lease, in favour of the fifth respondent society. He further submitted that the Panchayat was not aware of the steps taken by the Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, Upper Penniyar Vadinilakkottam, Dharmapuri-5, third respondent, regarding the grant of lease to the fifth respondent. According to the petitioner, had the Village Panchayat participated in the auction conducted for lease of fishing rights, there would have been no other option to the Public Works Department, except to grant fishing rights in favour of the Panchayat.
(3.) .The petitioner has further submitted that the Panchayat bona fidely believed that the members of the society would come forward to sell their fishing rights for the welfare of the entire village and therefore, the Panchayat did not take any steps to get the lease directly from the Public Works Department. Earlier, some elders of the Village, filed writ petitions for fishing rights and that the lease holders also filed a writ petition before this Court and hence, the petitioner-Panchayat waited for the outcome of those writ petitions and since the writ petitions filed by the elders, were dismissed, a decision was taken by the Council, by passing a resolution, to protect the interest of the Panchayat and hence, it was decided to file the present writ petition.;