ORDER 1. Aggrieved by non–providing the Thane relief fund by the respondents to the petitioner towards the damages caused to his Mechanized Board bearing the Registration No.IND.PY.PP.MM.33 due to Thane Cyclone, the petitioner has come forward with the present Writ Petition, seeking for a direction to the respondents to provide the above said fund to him together with interest. 2. According to the petitioner, he belongs to Fishermen Community and carrying on his livelihood by fishing with the help of his Mechanized Boat bearing Registration No.IND.PY.PP.MM.33 which got completely damaged due to Thane Cyclone. For getting repairs to his damaged boat, the petitioner approached “Thengaithittu Port” authorities, where he was informed that it would take one month time for effecting the repairs to his board, which prompted the petitioner to take his boat to Cuddalore Port and spent nearly a sum of Rs.7,00,000/– towards repairs and brought the boat to Thengaithittu with proper permission from Cuddalore Port authorities. 3. While that be so, the first respondent issued a G.O. providing relief/compensation to the victims of the Fishermen category whose boats had been damaged in Thane Cyclone. Pursuant to the same, the petitioner approached the authorities and made an application for grant of relief fund in the month of January 2012. The 4th respondent visited Thengaithittu Port and inspected the petitioner’s damaged boat and assessed the percentage of damage at Rs.4,50,000/–. He also forwarded the said assessment report to the 5th respondent. The grievance of the petitioner is that though 5th respondent recommended for grant of the relief fund, 2nd and 3rd respondents have not taken steps to forward the application of the petitioner to the 6th respondent. In the mean time, the first respondent issued G.O.Rt. No. 7/2012FY, dated 23.2.2012, announcing that totally 65 fishermen victims are entitled to get Thane Cyclone relief/compensation under category partial damage. Though the petitioner made representations for grant of relief fund, there was no response from the respondents. Hence the petitioner has come forward with the present writ petition. 4. In the mean time, the first respondent issued G.O.Rt. No. 7/2012FY, dated 23.2.2012, announcing that totally 65 fishermen victims are entitled to get Thane Cyclone relief/compensation under category partial damage. Though the petitioner made representations for grant of relief fund, there was no response from the respondents. Hence the petitioner has come forward with the present writ petition. 4. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the 2nd respondent, wherein, it is stated that as per the directions of the Government of India, all the fishing boats should be registered online with unique identification numbers and the owners of the boats have to mandatorily get prior permission from the concerned department of their maritime state for venturing the sea for fishing and also for shifting of the boats from one place to another and also the boat owners are entitled to lift the permitted quantity of diesel outlet only on possession of the fishing permit. The petitioner has not obtained any such prior permission before shifting the boat from Puducherry to Cuddalore and hence, there is no evidence to show that he shifted the boat to Cuddalore port. It is also revealed from records that the petitioner has not availed diesel permit and the 2nd respondent department has not issued any permit to the petitioner’s boat after 4.9.2011. It is also found that the petitioner’s boat has not been operated in Thengaithittu Fishing Harbour from 5.9.2011 to 30.12.2011. If the petitioner had operated the boat without diesel permit by availing diesel from other sources, it would attract offences under Essential Commodities Act. The petitioner has no records to establish that he operated the Boat after 4.9.2011. The petitioner has not furnished proper records regarding ownership of the boat. During inspection on 12.1.2012 by the team of officials conducted in the presence of Boat Owners Association representatives of Thengaithittu, it was reported that the boat of the petitioner had already been sold to Cuddalore fishermen and it reached the Thengaithittu Fishing Harbour only on the previous night, i.e. 11.1.2012. The boat was brought from Cuddalore to Puducherry without official permission only for availing the relief fund and on inspection, it was found that there were no damages to the petitioner’s boat. In such circumstances, the case of the petitioner was not recommended for payment of compensation. The boat was brought from Cuddalore to Puducherry without official permission only for availing the relief fund and on inspection, it was found that there were no damages to the petitioner’s boat. In such circumstances, the case of the petitioner was not recommended for payment of compensation. The petitioner was not operating the boat after 4.9.2011 at Puducherry and only for the purpose of availing relief fund, he brought the boat a day prior to the inspection without obtaining shifting order. He produced the bills for effecting the damages to his boat were found fake. With these averments, the second respondent sought for dismissal of the writ petition. 5. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Puducherry) appearing for the respondents and perused the entire materials available on record. 6. The contention of the petitioner that the action of the respondents in not giving compensation under Thane relief fund for the damages caused to his Mechanized Boat bearing the Registration No.IND.Py.PP.MM.33 while providing such funds to others, amounts to discrimination and violation of Article 14 of the Constitution, cannot be accepted. The action of the respondents is also not arbitrary as contended by the petitioner. The reason being, the petitioner has not availed any permission before shifting his boat from Puducherry to Cuddalore and there is no evidence that with prior permission only, the board has been shifted to Cuddalore Port and that apart, from the facts pleaded supra, it is clear that the petitioner has not availed diesel permit and in fact, no permit was issued by the Department after 4.9.2011. The petitioner verbally contended that he was availing diesel from open market and using the boat cannot be accepted. Even assuming such a contention is accepted, such act is illegal. The contention of the respondents that the boat was not operated in Thengaithittu Fishing Harbour from 5.9.2011 to 31.12.2011 cannot be ignored. 7. The petitioner verbally contended that he was availing diesel from open market and using the boat cannot be accepted. Even assuming such a contention is accepted, such act is illegal. The contention of the respondents that the boat was not operated in Thengaithittu Fishing Harbour from 5.9.2011 to 31.12.2011 cannot be ignored. 7. From the narration of the events, it is clear that when inspection was conducted on 12.01.2012, it was stated that the boat of the petitioner has already been sold to the Cuddalore fishermen and it reached to Thengaithittu Fishing Harbour on 11.1.2012 and the said boat was brought from Cuddalore to Puducherry without official permission for shifting order, only for the purpose of availing the relief fund and on inspection, it was found that there was no damage to the petitioner’s boat. In such circumstances, the respondents have rightly not recommended for compensation. During another inspection at Cuddalore on 3.5.2012, the officials found that there was no boat and they were informed that the boat was taken to Puducherry without official shifting order. However, subsequent to the inspection, the petitioner has obtained the shifting order from the Cuddalore fisheries Department belatedly on 23.6.2012 only to establish that the boat was in operation at Puducherry. The petitioner is trying to give colour to the issue and to project that there is political animosity and it is nothing but a cock and bull story. As rightly contended by the respondents, the petitioner has produced fake bills to get the relief fund. The respondents have issued orders to give the benefits if there is a genuine case. 8. From the facts narrated above, it appears that the claim of the petitioner is not genuine and hence, he is not entitled to any relief as sought for by him in this Writ Petition. 9. The conduct of the petitioner in shifting the board from one place to another on several occasions without any valid shifting order from the concerned authorities and availing diesel from open market to project that the boat was utilised in a particular place and producing fake bills that repair works had done to the boat, is going to establish that the petitioner’s case is not genuine and it is not a fit case for ordering grant of relief fund. 10. 10. For the foregoing discussion, though this Court is inclined to dismiss the writ petition with costs, however, since the petitioner is a fisherman, no costs are imposed. In the result, the Writ Petition is dismissed as devoid of merits. No costs. Consequently, connected MP is closed. Petition dismissed.