Judgment :- 1. The petitioner is before this Court for the second round. In the earlier writ petition, the petitioner challenges an order passed by the District Collector cum Inspector of Panchayat in cancelling the fishing right granted in his favour. This Court in W.P.No.2725 of 2010 held that the order passed by the District Collector suffers from vice of principles of natural justice. Therefore, while setting aside the order dated 02.02.2010, directed the District Collector to pass orders afresh after due notice and after hearing the petitioner. 2. It was pursuant to the direction issued by this Court, the District Collector, Namakkal issued a show cause notice to the petitioner dated 28.02.2012, asking him to show cause as to why license issued for a period of five years from 09.08.2008 by the Panchayat giving him the fishing right in Amirtha Sagar Lake in Paruthipalli Panchayat Union should not be cancelled. The Collector in his show cause notice stated that the petitioner in collusion with the President of the Panchayat by name Ms.P.Thangammal cornered the fishing right by giving 10% increase over the previous year. He was asked to show cause within a period of 15 days. 3. The reasons found in the show cause notice were as follows:- i) Even though the lease amount was more than Rs.10,000/-, no proper notice was put up in the Panchayat Union Notice Board or District Panchayat Notice Board and no transparency was followed in the auction. No advertisement was given either in the District Gazette or in any leading newspaper; seven days before the auction in the case of District Gazette and 3 days before in the case of newspaper. ii) No upset amount was fixed after getting approval from the Fisheries Department in respect of the lease granted. iii) Subsequent to the offer made by the petitioner, no confirmation was obtained from the Inspector of Panchayat. iv) The petitioner's claim that when he was granted lease hold right during the year 2008-2009, poison was put in the tank, thereby leading to massive destruction of the hatch maintained by him and therefore, because of the loss sustained by him, he should have been granted 5 more years lease on the basis of 10% increase over the previous year was not acceptable. v) The guidelines given by the State Government were not followed. v) The guidelines given by the State Government were not followed. Under Board Standing Order No.211, there is no scope for granting 10% increase and thereafter giving 5 years lease hold. vi) Lastly, it was stated that Executive Officer of the Panchayat has not made proper order in granting the fishing license in favour of the petitioner and Rules were not followed and hence, it is open to the Inspector of Panchayat to issue appropriate show cause notice and cancelled the license. 4. After the receipt of the show cause notice, the petitioner sent a reply dated 14.03.2012. In the reply, except by stating that the lease was given in his favour on the basis of resolution of the Panchayat, dated 06.08.2009 after following necessary procedure and also denying his illegal partnership with the village Panchayat President in the said business, the petitioner has not denied the absence of approval being obtained from the Inspector of Panchayat for getting the lease confirmed in his favour. He had also not denied the allegation that there was no due publicity in the grant of renewal of lease in his favour. 5. The District Collector after taking note of the relevant circumstances including the explanation given by the petitioner as well as the order passed by this Court gave a detailed reply and cancelled the lease in his favour. The authority in his final order found that there was no due publicity for the fishing lease even though the value of the lease amount was more than Rs.10,000/-and contrary to the Government guidelines, lease was given. No Earnest Money Deposit was obtained and after fixing upset price before conducting the auction, no approval was obtained from the District collector for conducting auction and Board Standing Order 211 was not followed. It is in that view of the matter, the license was cancelled. Challenging the same, the writpetition came to be filed. 6. Heard the arguments of Mr.T.Mohan learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.M.C.Swamy, learned Special Government Pleader taking notice for the official respondents. 7. Mr.T.Mohan, learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the statutory rules framed by the State Government under Tamil Nadu Panchayats (Lease and Licensing of Fishery Rights in Water Sources Vested and Regulated by Village Panchayats and Panchayat Union Councils) Rules, 1999 made by G.O.Ms.No.169 Rural Development dated 16.08.1999. 7. Mr.T.Mohan, learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the statutory rules framed by the State Government under Tamil Nadu Panchayats (Lease and Licensing of Fishery Rights in Water Sources Vested and Regulated by Village Panchayats and Panchayat Union Councils) Rules, 1999 made by G.O.Ms.No.169 Rural Development dated 16.08.1999. More particularly, he referred to Rule No.11, wherein, it is stated that normal lease period is for a period of 5 years and lease amount shall be raised every year at the rate of 10 per cent over the lease amount of the previous year. Upset lease amount should be fixed by the Village Panchayat in consultation with the Inspector of Fisheries of the respective area. 8. The learned counsel also stated that Rule 12 provides the power to the Executive Authority of the Panchayat to conduct public auction. But in the very same Rule, it is stated that auction of fishery rights shall be conducted after giving sufficient notice and publicity. Rule No. 12(3) also provides for fixing of earnest money deposit at the rate of 5 per cent of upset lease amount. The learned counsel did not refer to Rule 13 wherein, it is clearly stated that the Inspector of Panchayats has to confirm the auction. 9. In this context, the learned Special Government Pleader brought to the notice of this Court the earlier judgment of this Court in G.Poosathurai v. The District Collector in W.P.(MD)No.221 of 2011 dated 02.11.2011, wherein, the Rules framed by the State Government under Section 242 of the Panchayat Act held to be statutory in character and any violation of the Rule will vitiate the auction procedure. In paragraphs 6 and 7, it was observed as follows:- "6.) The Government order referred to dated 16.08.1999 in paragraph 4 which is a statutory rule framed by the State Government under Section 242 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994 in respect of (Lease and Licensing of Fishery Rights in Water Sources Vested and Regulated by Village Panchayats and Panchayat Union Councils) Rules, 1999. Under the said rules, more particularly, Rule 11 reads as follows: "11.) Lease of fishery rights:-The lease of fishery rights in the water sources vested in the Village Panchayats or the Panchayat Union Council shall be given after conducting public auction by the respective Village Panchayats or Panchayat Union Council, as the case may be. Under the said rules, more particularly, Rule 11 reads as follows: "11.) Lease of fishery rights:-The lease of fishery rights in the water sources vested in the Village Panchayats or the Panchayat Union Council shall be given after conducting public auction by the respective Village Panchayats or Panchayat Union Council, as the case may be. Such lease shall be for a period of five years. Lease amount shall be raised every year at the rate of 10 per cent over the lease amount of the previous year. Upset lease amount shall be fixed by the Village Panchayat and the Panchayat Union Council concerned in consultation with the Inspector of Fisheries of the respective area." 7.) In the light of the statutory powers vested on the panchayat and also it is being regulated by the said statutory rules, the petitioner by filing writ petition cannot seek for derailing the statutory power of panchayat union. There is no case made out to entertain the writ petition. Hence,the writ petition stands dismissed. " 10. A further reference was also made to another judgment of this Court wherein, the entire history of fishing rights in public tank came to be considered in W.P.No.4293 of 2004 and batch cases dated 11.08.2008 [Batlagundu Pattatharigal Sangam, represented by its President v. The Commissioner] and others. In that case, this Court held after the introduction of Panchayat Act in respect of fishing rights granted to the Panchayat, the Panchayat alone will have power to auction the fishing rights. It was further stated that no individual or group of persons can claim to have any control over the fishing right in the absence of any legal right. 11. The learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in W.P.Nos.15741 of 2003 and batch cases in K.Chandru and others v. The President and others dated 10.09.2003. In that case, this Court after referring to Rule 11 also upheld the validity of the panchayat in renewing the lease by increasing 10% of the lease amount of the previous year. But questions raised in the present writ petition was not considered in the aforesaid case. 12. In the light of the above, it has to be seen whether the petitioner has any vested right for an automatic renewal only because he has offered to pay 10% more than the previous year. But questions raised in the present writ petition was not considered in the aforesaid case. 12. In the light of the above, it has to be seen whether the petitioner has any vested right for an automatic renewal only because he has offered to pay 10% more than the previous year. As noted already, it is only an enabling provision for the Panchayat to renew the lease but that is subject to the confirmation by the Inspector of Panchayat. In this case, the petitioner has not even denied about the due publicity being given to the said fishing right especially when the petitioner himself has offered more than Rs.60,000/- towards the lease amount. In such circumstances, there is clear violation of guidelines framed by the State Government in the matter of leasing fishing rights. In the absence of confirmation by Inspector of Panchayat, the petitioner cannot by taking the writ petition route get his lease confirmed. As noted already, originally the District Collector has cancelled the license on the basis of the records. This Court also did not question the bonafides of the District Collector in invoking the power, but merely stated that there must be an opportunity given to the petitioner before any cancellation is made. In this case, sufficient opportunity was given and show cause notice also contained specific reasons for cancellation. Out of several reasons given, the petitioner not even denied two specific reasons pointed out viz., lack of publicity and lack of confirmation by the Inspector of Panchayat. 13. Therefore, it cannot be said that any illegality has crept in, in the impugned order passed by the District Collector, Namakkal. Hence, there is no case made out. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. If on account of the illegal renewal given by the Panchayat, the petitioner has suffered any loss, it is for him to work out his remedy in terms of claiming damages against the Panchayat which had passed the illegal order. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.