ORDER : This Writ Petition has been filed praying for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the proceedings of the second respondent made in Na.Ka.No.985/E/14 dated 04.06.2015 and quash the same and consequently direct the first and the second respondents to implement the order made in Na.Ka.No.985/E/14 dated 19.03.2015. 2. The case of the petitioner is that he is a permanent resident of Kidaripatti Village. He is a registered member of the Local Fisherman Co-operative Society, Melur. The second respondent herein conducts auction for granting fisheries right in respect of Kanakkankulam tank, Udaiyarkudikulam tank and Chinna Udiayarkudikulam tanks situate in and around the said Village. As per G.O.(Ms).No.33 dated 27.02.1995, in case no one comes forward to participate in the tender or no one has taken part in the public auction for any of these tanks and if the bid amount is less than the upset price, the fisheries of such of these tanks will be exploited by the department itself by giving 50% of the share to the local fishermen Co-operative Society Members as usual. It is further case of the petitioner that no one has come forward to participate in the tender for the year 2014-2015. 3. While the situation stood thus, originally, the second respondent passed an order through his proceedings in Na.Ka.No.985/E14 dated 19.03.2015 granting fishing rights to the petitioner's Co-operative Society and later, it was granted to the third respondent, namely, Pudipatti Fishermen Co operative Society, vide his proceedings dated 04.06.2015 as against G.O.Ms.No.33 dated 27.02.1995, on account of the fact that the petitioner's Society had not passed any resolution to have fishing rights in the said tanks. The petitioner further alleges that as soon as the level of water reduces in the tank, they would enter to catch the fish, which was also accepted by the second respondent over phone. It is alleged that contrary to that, the second respondent had granted the fishing rights to the third respondent. As a result, the petitioner's Society and its Members are affected to a great extent. If the impugned order is allowed to continue, neither the Government nor the Society would be benefitted. Having left with no other remedy, the petitioner is before this Court to quash the order of the second respondent dated 04.06.2015 and consequently to implement the order dated 19.03.2015. 4. If the impugned order is allowed to continue, neither the Government nor the Society would be benefitted. Having left with no other remedy, the petitioner is before this Court to quash the order of the second respondent dated 04.06.2015 and consequently to implement the order dated 19.03.2015. 4. The second respondent has filed a detailed counter affidavit in which it is averred that the fishery rights of irrigation tanks under the Scheme of Intensive Inland Fish Culture and Marketing implemented by the Fisheries Department are leased out to the highest bidders for a continuos period of three years subject to the renewal every year and the fishery of non-lease tanks are conserved and harvested directly by the Fisheries Department engaging the members of local Fishermen Co-operative Society by giving 50% of the fish catches as wages to the members as per G.O.Ms.No.33, Animal Husbandry & Fisheries (FS-IV) Department dated 27.02.1995. 5. While so, the President of the Melur Taluk Fishermen Co-operative Society was requested vide letter dated 11.02.2015 with list of non-lease tanks to convene General Body Meeting of Fisherman Co operative Society, allot the Members tank wise and submit the copy of resolutions to this office so as to issue official orders entrusting the work on conservancy and harvest of fishery of the tank. Despite repeated requests over phone and personal contact, the President of Melur Taluk Fishermen Co-operative Society had failed to submit the resolutions of Fishermen Co operative Society till 14.06.2015 and allot the members of Fishermen Co-operative Society till 31.05.2015. Considering the short span of time, as per the instructions contained in Director of Fisheries, Chennai, dated 26.12.1985, action was pursued to engage the members of the adjacent Fishermen Co-operative Society. The said decision was also communicated to the petitioner's Society through letter dated 01.06.2015. Accordingly, the fishing rights were allotted to the third respondent herein. A copy was also marked to the petitioner's Society, for which, there was no response from the petitioner's Society. However, in response to the letter of the official respondents, the third respondent Society submitted a copy of the resolution with the tank wise allotment of members ensuring their willingness to attend conservancy and harvest of fishery in the non-lease tanks in the Melur Tank. 5.1. However, in response to the letter of the official respondents, the third respondent Society submitted a copy of the resolution with the tank wise allotment of members ensuring their willingness to attend conservancy and harvest of fishery in the non-lease tanks in the Melur Tank. 5.1. While the situation stood thus, after the orders were issued to the third respondent, the petitioner's Society started creating a problem with intimidation in the process of harvest of fishery in the tanks in question. It clearly shows the intention of the local people to enjoy the fishery of these tanks in an unauthorised manner and with vested interests, thus causing revenue loss to the Government. Further, after allotting the fishery rights to the third respondent, the petitioner submitted a resolution on 15.06.2015 and tankwise allotment of members, in which, the petitioner name does not find a place in any of the tanks in Kidaripatti Village. Therefore, the proceedings of the second respondent shall be sustained in all its entirety and he prayed for the dismissal of this Writ Petition. 5.2. The third respondent has filed a vacate stay petition through M.P.(MD).No.3 of 2015 in W.P. (MD).No.10049 of 2015, in which, apart from reiterating the counter of the second respondent, he would only contend that in view of the stay granted by this Court, the third respondent Society could not make use of the leasehold right given by the second respondent. According to the learned counsel for the third respondent, the petitioner's Society is not functioning at all. Further, after granting fishery rights to the third respondent, since the petitioner's Society created a law and order problem, the third respondent filed a direction petition before this Court in Crl.O.P(MD).No.11365 of 2015 and sought for police protection and the same is pending adjudication. Eventually, he prayed for the dismissal of this Writ Petition. 6. Pending Writ Petition, at the stage of admission itself, this Court has granted an order of interim stay, in favour of the petitioner's Society, on 19.06.2015 and thereafter, it was not extended for several hearings. 7. Eventually, he prayed for the dismissal of this Writ Petition. 6. Pending Writ Petition, at the stage of admission itself, this Court has granted an order of interim stay, in favour of the petitioner's Society, on 19.06.2015 and thereafter, it was not extended for several hearings. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently submitted that since it is an admitted case of the official respondents that no one has come forward to participate in the tender, as per G.O.Ms.No. 33, Animal Husbandry & Fisheries (FS-IV) Department dated 27.02.1995, the petitioner's Society is entitled to get fishery rights from the official respondents herein. Further, the second respondent, after allotting the fishing rights to the petitioner's Society, without therebeing giving any valid reason, allotted the said rights to the third respondent. The second respondent has failed to take note of the fact the petitioner's Society has passed a resolution on 15.06.2015 and its tank wise allotment of members as resolved in the Executive Committee Meeting of Melur Taluk Fishermen Co-operative Society held on 10.06.2015 and thus, the allotment of fishery rights to the third respondent is in violation of the principals of natural justice. Hence, he prayed for the allowing of this Writ Petition. 8. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate for the second respondent submitted that since the petitioner has failed to pass any resolution in time to attend conservancy and harvest of fishery in the non-lease tanks in Melur Taluk as ordered by the Department, the Department has no option but to pass order in favour of the third respondent to avoid further loss to the Government. Hence, he prayed for the dismissal of this Writ Petition. 9. The third respondent also sails along with the second respondent. In addition to which, he submitted that the petitioner herein has no locus standi to challenge this order, as the President of Melur alone is the competent person to challenge the order of the second respondent. Furthermore, after granting the fishery rights to the third respondent, the petitioner's Society has passed a resolution and its tank wise allotment of members on 15.06.2015, in which, the petitioner's name does not find a place. Therefore, absolutely, there is no violation in granting the contract to the third respondent. Thus, he too prayed for the dismissal of this Writ Petition. 10. Therefore, absolutely, there is no violation in granting the contract to the third respondent. Thus, he too prayed for the dismissal of this Writ Petition. 10. I have heard the submissions made by the parties concerned and perused the materials available on record. 11. It is an undisputed fact as per as per G.O.Ms.No.33, Animal Husbandry & Fisheries (FS-IV) Department dated 27.02.1995, if nobody has come forward to participate in the tender, the fisheries of such of those tanks will be exploited by department itself by giving 50% of the share to the local Fishermen Co-operative Society Members as usual. Admittedly, in the case on hand, nobody has come forward to participate in the tender for fishing rights in respect of Kanakkankulam tank, Udaiyarkudikulam tank and Chinna Udiayarkudikulam tanks of Kidaripatti Village. There may not be any dispute that the petitioner's Society also is a local Fishermen Society. Therefore, actually, the petitioner's Society should have been permitted to get fishing rights provided if the petitioner's Society fulfills the other requirements of the respondents too. Though the petitioner's Society appears to have fulfilled the conditions at the initial stage, the said Society has failed to pass a resolution in time, which will be the basic requirements for the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner herein. Added further, it is more relevant to point out that in the affidavit itself the petitioner has fairly stated that the second respondent passed an order through his proceedings in Na.Ka.No.985/E14, dated 19.03.2015 granting fishing rights to the petitioner's Co-operative Society at Melur. Therefore, this Court can safely come to the conclusion that there cannot be any mala fide intention with regard to the action of the second respondent. Subsequently, he was forced to ignore the order dated 19.03.2015 for the simple reason that inspite of a letter of the second respondent dated 11.02.2015 to provide the list of non-lease tanks and to convene General Body Meeting of Fishermen Co operative Society, allot the members tank wise and submit the copy of the resolutions to the office so as to enable them to confirm the order dated 11.02.2015, which the petitioner's Society has failed to do so. Therefore, the second respondent is left with no other option but to allot the fishery rights to the third respondent herein. Therefore, the second respondent is left with no other option but to allot the fishery rights to the third respondent herein. Curiously, after allotting the fishery rights to the third respondent on 04.06.2015, the petitioner's Society has submitted a resolution on 15.06.2015. Since the time is the essence of the matter, the second respondent cannot be asked to wait till the petitioner's Society passes a resolution. In order to avoid revenue loss to the Government, as per the instructions contained in Director of Fisheries Memo No.86060/F2/85 dated 26.12.1985, orders were issued to the third respondent herein. The petitioner's Society should be prudent enough to pass a resolution pursuant to the order of second respondent dated 19.03.2015. Having failed to do so, the petitioner may not have any say in this matter. 12. In view of the foregoing reasons, this Court finds no merit in the contentions of the petitioner. Accordingly, it is dismissed. No costs, consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.