K.MUTHUKANNAN Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR THENI DISTRICT THENI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both these Writ Petitions pertain to an auction of fishing rights in respect of the Meenakshiamman Tank (the Tank) at Bodinayakanur Taluk, Theni District, which is a large tank admeasuring about 182.5 hectares.

(2.) The petitioner in W.P.(MD).No.13591 of 2021 is a fishermen's co-operative society (the Society), whereas the petitioner in W.P.(MD).No. 15088 of 2021 is the successful bidder at a tender-cum-auction conducted for the grant of fishing rights. In the year 2018-2019, the fishing rights in the Tank were granted at Rs.40,00,000..00 Thereafter, the Society was granted a licence in respect of the Tank for three years, 2019-2020 to 2021-2022, at a licence fee of Rs.5,87,520.00 for the first year, Rs.6,46,272.00 for the second year and Rs.7,10,899.00 for the third year. This was challenged by the petitioner therein, S.T.Mani, by filing W.P. (MD) No.5485 of 2020 on the ground that the fixation of the upset price was not done by taking into account the productivity of the Tank, water retentivity, cost of stocking and other factors in terms of G.O.Ms. No.201 dtd. 19/10/2017 of the Animal Husbandry, Dairying and Fisheries (FS-6) Department of the Government of Tamil Nadu (G.O.Ms.601). The said petitioner was willing to pay a sum of Rs.40.00 lakhs for the licence for fishing rights. By order dtd. 31/8/2020, W.P. (MD) No.5485 of 2020 was disposed of by directing the Secretary of Government, Fisheries Department to issue a tender notification and call for offers. The amount tendered by the highest bidder was directed to be offered to the Society. If the Society agrees to take the licence at such price, it should be granted; otherwise, it should go to the highest bidder. This order was challenged in W.A.(MD).No.1251 of 2020 and W.A. (MD).No.923 of 2020 by the official respondents and Society, respectively. The said Writ Appeals were disposed of by judgment dtd. 3/2/2021. By such judgment, the Court concluded that the upset price fixed by the Government was very low and that State largesse cannot be handed over on a platter by ignoring the financial implications. Consequently, the official respondents were directed to re-do the exercise. The State relies upon paragraph 10 of the said judgment which specifies a methodology to be followed in such regard. On the other hand, the Society relies upon paragraphs 9 and 14 of the judgment. On such basis, the Society contends that the State was required to fix the upset price and offer the same to the Society. According to the Society, it is only with regard to subsequent years that the methodology specified in paragraph 10 would be applicable.

(3.) By relying on paragraph 10 of the judgment of the Division Bench, the State proceeded to conduct a tender-cum-auction. It appears that such tender-cum-auction was conducted three times unsuccessfully inasmuch as licence was not granted on such basis to the highest bidder in such auctions. The precise details of such auctions are not on record. In any case, the focus of this lis is the fourth tender-cum-auction (the Auction), which was held pursuant to a tender-cum-auction notice dtd. 9/7/2021 (the Auction Notice). A reserve price of Rs.40,00,000.00 was fixed and each bidder was required to deposit a sum of Rs.20,00,000.00 as an earnest money deposit. The petitioner in W.P. (MD).No.15088 of 2021 was the successful bidder at the Auction for a price of Rs.52,50,000.00 (Rupees Fifty Two Lakhs and Fifty Thousand only). In accordance with the terms and conditions of the Auction, about 50% of the bid amount was remitted by the highest bidder.