S. INDIRAKANTHAN Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) We have heard Mrs.Nalini Chidambaram, learned Senior Counsel for Ms.C.Uma, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr.Edwin Prabakar, learned State Government Pleader for respondents 1 and 2; and, Mr.K.Karthik Jegannath, learned Government Advocate for the third respondent.

(2.) According to learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, the contract of fishing rights in the lake in Thirumanikuppam Panchayat has been given to the fourth respondent. It is the prerogative of the Panchayat to get the fishing rights. However, without following the procedure and without the Panchayat saying that it is not interested, the tender has been issued and the fourth respondent is given the fishing rights. The same is illegal.

(3.) Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the copy of resolution dtd. 10/5/2023 placed on record is false. Two subjects are merged in Subject No.16. The same is only to get over the flaw committed. The resolution, on the face of it, does not appear to have been passed. No agenda has been placed on record.