Order M. Jaichandren, J. 1. Heard Mrs. N. Krishnaveni, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, as well as Mr. K. Chellapandian, the learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the respondents. 2. Since common issues are arising for the consideration of this Court, both the Writ Petitions are heard together and a Common Order is being passed. 3. The Writ Petition, in W.P.[MD].No.330 of 2012, has been filed praying that this Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents not to construct of check dam on the eastern side of the Srivaikuntam River Bridge, at Vallanadu Village, Srivaikuntam Taluk, Thoothukudi District, as mentioned in Serial No.9 of the Annexure to G.O.Ms.No.50, Public Works Department [R2], dated 23.02.2011. 3. The Writ Petition, in W.P.[MD].No.3248 of 2011, had been filed praying that this Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to remove the wall, measuring one foot in height and 512 metres in length, constructed above the existing wall, in Kannadian Anaicut, across the Tamiraparani River. 4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, in W.P.[MD].No.330 of 2012, had submitted that if the respondents are allowed to construct the check dam, on the eastern side of the Srivaikuntam River Bridge, at Vallanadu Village, Srivaikudam Taluk, Thoothukudi District, the Ayakatuthars of Srivaikundam Taluk, would be adversely affected, and their rights to use the river water would be curtailed. Therefore, the inclusion of the work to construct the check dam, across the Tamiraparani River, at Srivaikundam, as mentioned in the Government Order, in G.O.Ms.No.50, Public Works Department [R2], dated 23.02.2011, is arbitrary, illegal and void. The said Government Order had been passed without giving an opportunity of hearing to the Ayakatuthars, who are entitled to use the water, flowing in the Tamiraparani River. The Government Order had been passed by the State Government, without having the necessary jurisdiction to do so and contrary to the provisions of the Constitution of India and the public policy of the State Therefore, the Government Order, in G.O.Ms.No.50, Public Works Department [R2], dated 23.02.2011, is liable to be set aside. 5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, in W.P.[MD].No.3248 of 2011, had submitted that the Tamiraparani River has been catering to the needs of the agriculturists and the residents of Tirunelveli and Tuticorin Districts. 5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, in W.P.[MD].No.3248 of 2011, had submitted that the Tamiraparani River has been catering to the needs of the agriculturists and the residents of Tirunelveli and Tuticorin Districts. The said river originates from Banatheertham falls, situated in the western Ghats. It flows down to Papanasam Dam and after passing through several places, it joins the Bay of Bengal at Srivaikuntam. It is the source of irrigation for about 86,112 acres of agricultural lands. There are eight Anaicuts and several canals for taking the water to the agricultural lands. 6. The learned counsel had further submitted that there are three seasons, namely, Advanced Kar, Kar and Pisanam, in which the agricultural operations are carried on. During the Advanced Kar and Kar seasons, no surplus water would be available, as the water, which would be available during the said seasons, would only be sufficient to cater to the needs of the Ayakatuthars. Only during the Pisanam season, north-east monsoon will prevail and surplus water would be available in Papanasam Dam. However, without considering the said factors, the State Government had decided to take the water through Kannadian Canal to the Karumeniar and Nambiar, by raising the wall of the Kannadian Anaicut to a height of one metre and by increasing the length to 512 metres. No opportunity had been given to the Ayakatuthars, who would be adversely affected by the construction of the additional portion of the wall in the Kannadian Anaicut. In such circumstances, the petitioner has preferred the present Writ Petitions, before this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 7. The learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the official respondents had submitted that the construction of the check dam at Srivaikuntam and the construction of the wall at Kannadian Anaicut are for the purpose of regulating the flow of water in the Tamiraparani River and for providing sufficient drinking water to the people, living in the areas concerned and for all the Ayakatuthars. 8. The learned Additional Advocate General had further submitted that the petitioners, in the above Writ Petitions, do not have any right to seek the reliefs, as prayed for, by them. 8. The learned Additional Advocate General had further submitted that the petitioners, in the above Writ Petitions, do not have any right to seek the reliefs, as prayed for, by them. The check dam and the wall are being constructed, as per the Government Order, in G.O.Ms.No.50, Public Works Department [R2], dated 23.02.2011, as the storing of sufficient water in certain places would increase the ground water level. The construction of the check dam will not affect the proper utilization of the river water during the different seasons. The check dams are being constructed to control the over flow of water and the wastage of excess water, which would be drained into the Bay of Bengal. The construction of the check dam would also increase the ground water level in the area surrounding the dam. The infiltration Wells located near the river would aid in the supply of drinking water to the people living in Tuticorin District. It has been further stated that the construction of the wall at the Kannaidan Anaicut is for providing drinking water to the people living in the areas concerned. Therefore, the Ayakatuthars in question would not be adversely affected, as claimed by the petitioners. It is only the excess water, which would be used for providing drinking water, for a large number of people. 9. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties concerned, and on a perusal of the records available, we do not find any cause or reason for this Court to grant the reliefs, as prayed for, by the petitioners, in the present Writ Petitions. No records had been placed before this Court to substantiate the claims made by the petitioners. Nothing has been shown before this Court to support the contentions of the Ayakatuthars, whose rights to use the water of Tamirabarani River, for agricultural purpose, would be adversely affected by the construction of the wall and the check dam in question. No particulars are made available, by the petitioners, before this Court, to arrive at the conclusion that the rights of the Ayakatuthars would be curtailed, by the construction of the wall, at the Kannadian Anaicut and the check dam, at Srivaikundam. No particulars are made available, by the petitioners, before this Court, to arrive at the conclusion that the rights of the Ayakatuthars would be curtailed, by the construction of the wall, at the Kannadian Anaicut and the check dam, at Srivaikundam. It is believed that the State Government is constructing the wall and the check dam in question, after obtaining the necessary opinions from the persons, who are the experts in the field of Water Resources Management and from the Engineers, who are involved in the construction of the wall and the check dam. Without the availability of sufficient statistics and the necessary data, it would not be open for this Court to decide the issue in favour of the petitioners, granting the reliefs, as prayed for, by them, in the present Writ Petitions. 10. In such view of the matter, we find it appropriate to hold that the Writ Petitions are devoid of merits, and therefore, they are liable to be dismissed. Hence, the Writ Petitions are dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are also dismissed.