Judgment :- (Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorari as stated therein.) P. Sathasivam, J. By consent of all the parties, the main Writ Petition itself is taken up for disposal. The petitioner, by name, Veda Rathinam, challenges the proceedings of the first respondent/District Collector, Pudukottai in Na.Ka. No.3974/2003/A7 dated 4.4.2005. 2. According to the petitioner, he is an Ex.Panchayat Ward Member of the second respondent Panchayat and filing this Writ Petition on behalf of general public of his village. It is claimed that their village consists of a population of thousand and situated in the banks of Narasinga Cauvery. The people depend mainly on fishing and agriculture. While so, the first respondent, who is an authority for the public and for the Panchayat has initiated steps through Tahsilder of Manamel Kudi Taluk to bring Survey Nos.53 and 55 of Kattu Mavadi Village of Manamel Kudi Panchayat Union for creating a public market for fishes and vegetables in the month of December 2004. The said Survey Numbers, 53 and 55 are situated inside the Narasinga Cauvery riverbed. The said action is vehemently opposed by the petitioner's village. However, the first respondent has issued the impugned order dated 4.4.2005 without considering the grievances of the villagers and without following the procedures envisaged under the Tamil Nadu Panchayats (Opening and Maintenance of Market) Rules 2000. In such circumstances, according to the petitioner, having no other remedy has filed the present Writ Petition. 3. Based on the averments in the affidavit, this Court directed the first respondent to inspect Survey Nos.53 and 55 of 18, Alagan Vayal revenue village of Manamel Kudi Taluk and to submit a report. Pursuant to the said direction, the District Collector/the Inspector of Panchayats, Pudukottai by letter dated 25.8.2005 submitted a report along with a copy of "A" Register, Adangal, F.M.B.Sketches for S.F.Nos.53 and 55, and details of encroachment. After inspection, the District Collector has concluded that "river poramboke comes under the highly objectionable category in which no structure should be allowed. An attempt by the Village Panchayat to go for an auction for running a fish and vegetable market in these S.F.Nos., which are classified as river poramboke is wrong. After inspection, the District Collector has concluded that "river poramboke comes under the highly objectionable category in which no structure should be allowed. An attempt by the Village Panchayat to go for an auction for running a fish and vegetable market in these S.F.Nos., which are classified as river poramboke is wrong. Allowing structures on these survey fields and the consequent indiscriminate dumping of waste materials by the encroachers would pollute the water way and obstruct the river course leading to loss of lives and property during floods. S.F.Nos.53 and 55 are neither suitable nor feasible for running a fish market as well as vegetable market considering the damage it could cause to the fragile environment of this coastal village. Hence, S.F.Nos.53 and 55 are not suitable for establishing a fish market and vegetable market as it is not advisable to put up structure in objectionable lands like river poramboke. No law and order problem is expected to arise as a result of rejection of permission for establishing fish market and vegetable market on this objectionable poramboke." 4. In the light of the conclusion of the District Collector, the apprehension raised by the petitioner is well founded. In such circumstances, the proceedings of the first respondent dated 4.4.2005 is quashed. Learned counsel appearing for the second respondent while accepting the report of the District Collector and also by drawing our attention to the decision of the Principal Bench reported in 2005-3-L.W.313 (L.Krishnan vs. State of Tamil Nadu represented by its Secretary, Department of Revenue (Land Development) Fort St.George, Chennai – 600 009 and 11 others) would submit that a direction may be issued to the District Collector for implementing the decision referred to in that case. While disposing of that Writ Petition, the Division Bench, in the concluding paragrah has made observation, which reads as follows: "14. ... While disposing of that Writ Petition, the Division Bench, in the concluding paragrah has made observation, which reads as follows: "14. ... Inasmuch as this Writ Petition has come before us by way of a public interest litigation, we take this opportunity to direct the State Government to identify all such natural water resources in different parts of the State and wherever illegal encroachments are found, initiate appropriate steps in accordance with the relevant provisions of law for restoring such natural water storage resources which have been classified as such in the revenue records to its original position so that the suffering of the people of the State due to water shortage is ameliorated." 5. In view of the conclusion of the first respondent, that too based on personal inspection, this Court is of the view that the first respondent will initiate appropriate steps in accordance with law for removal of encroachments in the said riverbed as directed in the above referred to decision viz., reported in 2005-3-L.W.313. 6. In the light of what is stated above, the Writ Petition is allowed with the above direction. No costs. Consequently, WPMP (MD) No.3206 and WVMP (MD) No.174 of 2005 are closed.