ORDER
P.D. Dinakaran, J.
1. Heard Mr. S.N. Ravichandran, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr. M.S. Palanisamy, learned Additional Government Pleader, appearing for the second respondent in W.P.No.15741 of 2003, respondents 1 to 3 in W.P.No.17683 of 2003 and respondents 1, 3 and 4 in W.P.No.20758 of 2003.
2. These writ petitions are related to the grant of fishery rights in Karambakkam Rettai Eri Tank located in Karambakkam Panchayat, as per the Tamil Nadu Panchayats (Lease and Licencing of Fishery Rights in water sources vested and regulated by Village Panchayats and Panchayat Union Councils) Rules, 1999, (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules”), notified by exercising the powers conferred under Section 242 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayat Act, 1994 and in supersession of the Tamil Nadu Lease and Licencing of Fishery Rights in Panchayats, Panchayat Union Rules, 1983, as per G.O.Ms. No.169, Rural Development (P3) dated 16.8.1999.
3. Admittedly, even though fishery rights were leased out to three persons, namely, Saravanan, Khadher Basha and Kalaiselvi by the Kanchipuram & Thiruvallur District Fish Growers Development Agency – the third respondent in W.P.No.15741/03 (hereinafter referred to as “the Agency”), by proceedings dated 11.10.1999, based on the representations of the said persons even dated 1.2.2000, the license granted in their favour was cancelled by the said Agency in their proceedings dated 18.2.2000 and thereafter, by proceedings dated 13.3.2000 of the said Agency, fishery right in the said tanks was leased out to the petitioners herein, namely, K.Chandru, P.L. Gopalakrishnan and K. Geetha for a period of nine years under the terms and conditions mentioned in the said proceedings dated 13.3.2000. Therefore, it is not in dispute that on the date of grant of license in favour of the petitioners by proceedings dated 13.3.2000 by the said Agency, the Govt. Order in G.O.Ms.No.169, Rural Development dated 16.8.1999 is very much in force and the grant of license of fishery right in favour of the petitioners is governed under the provisions of the said Rules. Therefore, the conditions of the license mentioned in the proceedings dated 13.3.2000, are binding on the petitioners and if the licensee fails to conform to any of the conditions prescribed in the proceedings dated 13.3.2000, the Executive Officer of the Village Panchayat/Commissioner of Panchayat Union/Fishery Agency/Collector may cancel the license, of course, after giving due opportunity to the licensee.
4. For the purpose of disposal of the above writ petitions, it is relevant to refer Rule 11 of the said Rules, which reads as follows:
“Lease of Fishery rights:- The lease of fishery rights in the water sources vested in the village panchayats or the panchayat union council shall be given after conducting public auction by the respective village panchayats or panchayat union council, as the case may be. Such lease shall be for a period of five years. Lease amount shall be raised every year at the rate of 10 per cent over the lease amount of the previous year.”
5. As per Rule 11 of the said Rules, the license of fishery right shall only be given for a period of five years. As the petitioners herein were given licence for more than five years, placing reliance on Rule 11 of the said Rules, the first respondent in W.P.No.15741 of 2003 – The President, Karambakkam Village Panchayat, by proceedings dated 4.2.2003, proposed to grant license in favour of one Hanifa, the fourth respondent in W.P.No.15741/2003. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners filed Writ Petition No.15741 of 2003 seeking a writ of Certiorari to call for the records connected with the impugned resolution of the first respondent in Se.Mu/60/2001-2002/Ka.Ue/dated 4.2.2002 and consequential resolution of the first respondent in Na.Ka.No.1/Ka.Mu.Ue/2002-2003 dated 4.2.2003 and quash the same. The said writ petition was admitted by this Court on 28.5.2003 and an order of interim stay was granted in WPMP.No.19784 of 2003 on 28.5.2003. However, the District Collector at Tiruvellore, by proceedings dated 12.6.2003, placing reference on Rule 11 of the said Rules and the Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.169, Rural Development, dated 16.8.1999, cancelled the license granted to the petitioners and hence, the petitioners again filed another Writ Petition, namely, W.P.No.17683 of 2003 seeking a writ of Certiorari to call for the entire records connected with the impugned proceedings of the first respondent in Na.Ka.2043/03/A3/U.Ei-(Ue) dated 12.6.2003 and quash the same, which was admitted by this Court on 27.6.2003 and an order of interim stay was granted in WPMP.No.22114 of 2003 on 27.6.2003.
6. In the meanwhile, taking note of the orders of interim stay granted in favour of the petitioners herein in WPMP.Nos.19784 and 22114 of 2003, the said Agency prevented the fourth respondent in W.P.No.15741 of 2003 and fifth respondent in W.P.No.20758 of 2003, viz., M. Hanifa, from exercising his fishery rights. Aggrieved by the same, the said M. Hanifa filed a writ petition viz., W.P.No.14679 of 2003 seeking a writ of Mandamus to direct the third respondent – The President, Karambakkam Village Panchayat, to protect the interest of the petitioner’s right to catch fish in the Karambakkam Rettai Eri Tank without interruption, which was admitted by this Court on 6.5.2003 and an order of interim injunction was granted on 6.5.2003 in WPMP.No.18345 of 2003 and the same was ultimately dismissed by this Court on 28.8.2003, as nothing survives.
7. In spite of orders of stay in WPMP.Nos.19784 and 22114 of 2003, as the petitioners could not exercise their fishery rights, the first petitioner in W.P.Nos.15741 and 17683 of 2003, viz., K.Chandru filed another writ petition viz., W.P.No.20758 of 2003, seeking a writ of Mandamus to direct respondents 3 and 4 therein to give police protection to the petitioner for the purpose of aquaculture and fish harvesting in the Porur Rettai Eri Tank, Karambakkam village, Villivakkam Union, Chennai-116.
8. From the above facts, it is very clear that the license granted to the petitioners in W.P.Nos.15741, 17683 and 20758 of 2003 are sought to be cancelled only based on Rule 11 of the said Rules, which emerges that license must be granted for a maximum period of five years. Admittedly, only in view of the cancellation of the license granted to the petitioners in W.P.Nos.15741, 17683 and 20758 of 2003, a fresh license was granted to the said Hanifa, who filed Writ Petition No.14679 of 2003 for forbearing the said Agency from interfering with his fishery rights, which was dismissed on 28.8.2003 as nothing survives.
9. The pivotal issue, which arises for my consideration, is whether the license granted to the petitioners herein beyond the period of five years as per Rule 11 of the said Rules is valid in law or not? and the cancellation of the license granted to the petitioners for the entire period of 9 years by proceedings dated 13.3.2000 is justified even though the petitioners are entitled for grant of license for a period of 5 years even as per Rule 11 of the said Rules.
10. It is not in dispute that as per Rule 11 of the said Rules, license can be granted only for a period of 5 years. Therefore, the grant of license for fishery right for more than 5 years is not valid. However, since the petitioners had already been granted license as early as in the year 2000, the same cannot be cancelled without giving adequate opportunity to them, as contemplated under rule 10 of the said Rules. That apart, the licensing authority is not entitled to cancel the license for the entire period of 9 years, as the petitioners got vested right for a period of 5 years, as per G.O.Ms.No.169, Rural Development Department, dated 16.8.1999. In any event, the 4th respondent in W.P.No.15741/03 and the 5th respondent in W.P.No.20758/03 has no vested right, as the very cancellation of the license granted to the petitioners is not valid in law.
11. Therefore, these writ petitions are disposed of on the following terms:
(i) The Executive Authority of the Village Panchayat/Commissioner of Panchayat Union/Fishery Agency/Collector is directed to modify the license granted to the petitioners for a period of five years from 13.3.2000 till 12.3.2005 and the petitioners shall not have any right beyond that period. During the license period, the petitioners shall strictly abide by the terms and conditions of the proceedings dated 13.3.2000.
(ii) During the period of license for five years from 13.3.2000 till 12.3.2005, the petitioners are entitled for police protection, if it is so required, to reap the fruits of license, as per Rule 11 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats (Lease and Licencing of Fishery Rights in water sources vested and regulated by Village Panchayats and Panchayat Union Councils) Rules, 1999.
(iii) In the event of violation of any of the terms and conditions of the license dated 13.3.2000, the Executive Authority of the Village Panchayat/Commissioner of Panchayat Union/Fishery Agency/Collector is at liberty to proceed against the petitioners in accordance with law.
These writ petitions are ordered accordingly. No costs. Consequently, W.P.M.P.Nos.19784, 22114 and 25847 of 2003 are closed.