WP/8089/2026 of Rangasamy Vs The State of Tamil Nadu on 6 October 2026

ORDER

This writ petition has been filed for the following relief: “To issue a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the order passed by the 2nd respondent in Na.Ka. No.11033/ F3/ 2020 dated 30.01.2026 quash the same and direct the respondents 2 and 3 to adjust the excess Royalty amount of Rs.15,93,472/- paid by the petitioner for the year 2020 to 2025 with sum of Rs.15,04,891.50/- for the Royalty amount to be paid by the petitioners for the year 2020 to 2025 and refund the excess payment of Royalty amount of Rs.88,530.50/- to the petitioners”.

2. The petitioners would submit that they are members of the 4th respondent-Fishermen Welfare Co-operative Society, consisting of nearly 3,000 fishermen. The Society was granted fishing rights in the reservoir tanks for the period 2013–2018 and 2020–2025. For the period 2013–2018, the royalty collected amounted to Rs.63,45,600/-, whereas the royalty payable was Rs.47,49,128/-, resulting in an excess payment of Rs.15,93,472/-. For the subsequent period 2020-2025, the royalty payable exceeded the amount paid by Rs.15,04,891.50/-. After adjustment, a balance excess royalty amount of Rs.88,530.50/- remained.

3. The petitioners would further submit that they made a representation dated 03.11.2025 seeking refund of the said balance amount. Pursuant to the order of this Court dated 12.12.2025 in W.P.No.48848 of 2025, the respondents were directed to consider the representation and pass orders on merits. However, the 2nd respondent, by order in Na.Ka.No.11033/F3/2020 dated 30.01.2026, rejected the claim stating that, as per Condition No.7 of the lease deed dated 09.07.2020, the royalty paid for the period 2013–2018 could not be adjusted against the royalty payable for the period 2020–2025. Aggrieved by the said order, the present writ petition has been filed.

4. Heard the learned counsels on both sides and perused the materials available on record.

5. The petitioners seek adjustment of the excess royalty amount of Rs.15,93,472/- paid for the period from 2013–2018 against the royalty payable for the period from 2020–2025 and consequently seek refund of the alleged balance amount of Rs.88,530.50/-. The contention of the petitioners is that, for the period from 2013–2018, the royalty was fixed at Rs.2.50/- per kilogram of fish catch and the petitioners were remitting the royalty amounts. According to the petitioners, the total royalty collected for the said period was Rs.63,45,600/-, whereas the royalty payable as per the actual catch was Rs.47,49,128/-, leaving an excess amount with the respondents. For the period from 2020–2025, the royalty payable was Rs.54,70,216.50/-, whereas a sum of Rs.39,65,325/- had been paid, leaving a balance of Rs.15,04,891.50/- payable by the petitioners. Therefore, the petitioners seek to adjust the excess amount allegedly lying with the respondents for the earlier period against the royalty payable for the subsequent period and claim the alleged balance amount of Rs.88,530.50/-.

6. However, the said claim is contrary to the terms of the lease deeds dated 08.10.2023 and 09.07.2020. Clause 7 of the said Lease Deed dated 09.07.2020 reads as follows: “7. The Lessee hereby agrees to pay any difference in annual minimum royalty and the actual royalty amount payable in one year in case the actual royalty amount comes to higher than that of calculated annual minimum royalty amount in the subsequent month. Delay in the remittance of the amount due to the Fisheries Department is liable to be collected with 24% interest per annum. In case the actual Royalty amount works out to be lesser than the calculated annual minimum royalty amount, the annual minimum royalty-amount will be retained by the Department. In the event of premature termination of lease due to some administrative reasons the balance amount of Royalty collected over the royalty payable for the period of lease enjoyed, will be refunded.”

7. A reading of the above clause would clearly show that, where the actual royalty amount works out to be lesser than the calculated annual minimum royalty amount, the annual minimum royalty amount would be retained by the Department. The said clause also provides for refund only in the event of premature termination of the lease due to administrative reasons. Therefore, the petitioners cannot claim the alleged excess amount of Rs.88,530.50/- for the period from 2013–2018 or seek adjustment of the amount of Rs.15,93,472/- against the royalty payable for the subsequent period. Further, a reading of the Lease Deed would show that the lease was entered into between the respondents and the Fishermen Welfare Co-operative Society and not with the individual petitioners. The petitioners are only members of the said Society.

8. Therefore, viewed from any angle, the petitioners are not entitled to the relief sought for. Consequently, no exception can be taken to the impugned order. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. 06-10-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No SRN

To

1. The Principal Secretary to Government, Animal Husbandry and Fisheries Department, Secretariat, Chennai-600 009

2. The Director of Fisheries, Fisheries and Fishermen Welfare, Animal Husbandry and Fisheries campus, Nandanam, Chennai-600 035

3. The Deputy Director of Fisheries, Fisheries and Fishermen Welfare, Dharmapuri Region, Opp. Collectorate, Dharmapuri.

4. The Assistant Director of Fisheries, Fisheries and Fishermen Welfare Board, Inland Fisheries, KRP Dam, Krishnagiri

5. The Administrative Officer, FMR 1 Kaveripattinam Paruvatha Rajakula Fishermen cooperative society, Agaram road, Opp. Santhosh Theatre, Kaveripattinam Krishnagiri District

P.T.ASHA J. SRN WP No. 8089 of 2026 AND WMP Nos. 8748 and 8749 OF 2026 06-10-2026