Prasanna Kumar K.S vs. The Assistant Director

Held

The Court held that the writ petition would be disposed of by directing the Executive Engineer, Public Works Department (3rd Respondent) to pass appropriate orders to determine whether the Executive Officer, Y.Narasingam Village Panchayat (5th Respondent) has the independent authority to grant rights for the collection/plucking of lotus, or if such jurisdiction lies with the Assistant Director, Fisheries Cum Fisherman Welfare Department (1st Respondent) or the Executive Engineer, Public Works Department (3rd Respondent). The Court emphasized that the interest and rights of the parties shall be determined subject to the orders passed by the 3rd Respondent based on available Government Rules and Regulations. The 3rd Respondent was directed to pass these orders on merits after hearing the petitioner and Respondent No. 8, along with Mahadevi, within four weeks from the date of receiving the order. The issue of whether Respondent No. 5 has the authority to grant such rights was not definitively decided but was remanded for determination by the 3rd Respondent.

Facts

The petitioner, Prasanna Kumar K.S., filed a writ petition seeking a direction to the Assistant Director, Fisheries Cum Fisherman Welfare Department (1st Respondent) to consider his representation dated 11.07.2025 for the preservation and protection of the Narasingam 4th bit Kanmai. The petitioner was the successful bidder in an e-tender for plucking lotus from the water body, offering Rs. 4,70,000/- plus other charges including GST, totaling Rs. 5,27,570/-. The petitioner alleged that Respondent No. 8 was damaging the water body and its flora and fauna by plucking lotus. The Executive Officer, Y.Narasingam Village Panchayat (5th Respondent) stated that the contract for plucking lotus was given to Respondent No. 8's sister, Mahadevi, for a period of one year expiring on 24.11.2025. The Government Advocate for Respondents 1-3 submitted that Respondent No. 5 lacks the authority to grant such rights.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Executive Officer, Y.Narasingam Village Panchayat (Respondent No. 5) is independently entitled to grant rights for the collection/plucking of lotus from the Narasingam 4th bit Kanmai, or if the jurisdiction for granting rights related to fishing or other aquatic flora/fauna vests with the Assistant Director, Fisheries Cum Fisherman Welfare Department (Respondent No. 1) or the Executive Engineer, Public Works Department (Respondent No. 3)? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that Respondent No. 8 was damaging the water body, contrary to the tender conditions which prohibited damage to aquatic flora and fauna. The petitioner relied on Condition No. 18 of the tender documents. Revenue/State's Contention: The Government Advocate for Respondents 1-3 argued that Respondent No. 5 does not possess the authority to grant rights to private individuals concerning the water body. The counsel for Respondent No. 5 stated that the contract for plucking lotus was awarded to Mahadevi, the sister of Respondent No. 8, and this has been the practice. No specific statutory provisions or business rules were produced by any party to definitively establish jurisdiction.