JUDGMENT SATISH K. AGNIHOTRI, J. 1. On the fateful day, i.e. 26th December 2014, Tsunami giant tidal waves, struck Tamil Nadu coast causing severe damage to fishing crafts and its implements, leading to loss of livelihood to the fishermen engaged in fishing activities. The State Government came up with G.O. Ms. No. 48, Revenue (NC. III) Department dated 29.01.2005 to provide a special assistance package to the fishermen, who lost their means of livelihood due to the said unprecedented Tsunami giant tidal waves. Clause 3 of the said Government Order clearly provides that the fishermen who eke out their livelihood from fishing be given package of assistance to rehabilitate themselves. The appellant, stating to be a person belonging to fishermen community, made two representations dated 05-06-2005 and 01-10-2005 seeking compensation under the said G.O. Ms. No. 48, Revenue (NC. III) Department dated 29.01.2005. No relief was granted to the appellant. Thus, the appellant preferred a writ petition being W.P. No. 5939 of 2010, seeking a direction to the respondents to grant compensation to the appellant under the said Government Order. The learned Single Judge, by order dated 25.03.2010 in W.P. No. 5939 of 2010, passed the following order: "3. It is seen from the records that the petitioner's claim for Tsunami relief is recommended by the District Collector, the third respondent herein, to the first respondent on 17.10.2008 and the petitioner has also submitted representation on 10.09.2009 followed with a reminder dated 21.1.2010 to the first respondent, but, till now, no order has been passed by the first respondent. Since the recommendation of the District Collector and the representations of the petitioner are pending on the file of the first respondent, the first respondent is directed to consider the claim of the petitioner in accordance with the Government Order referred to above and pass orders on merits and in accordance with law within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order." 2. Thereafter, the respondents, by letter no. 8864/Fs.1/2010-4 dated 28.05.2010, informed the appellant as under: "The Government Order first cited has been issued to give relief assistance to the Tsunami affected fishermen for their damaged fishing crafts so as to rehabilitate their livelihood. Thereafter, the respondents, by letter no. 8864/Fs.1/2010-4 dated 28.05.2010, informed the appellant as under: "The Government Order first cited has been issued to give relief assistance to the Tsunami affected fishermen for their damaged fishing crafts so as to rehabilitate their livelihood. Since your boat M.S. Mangahala is not a fishing craft and had been engaged by the Chennai Port Trust to ferry the labourers to the port and to carry the parcels to the cargo ships, the sanction of relief assistance to the damaged boat cannot be considered by the Fisheries Department, as per the guidelines issued in the Government Order first cited." 3. Being aggrieved by the said letter, the appellant preferred the instant writ petition seeking a direction to grant the benefit of compensation to him under the aforestated Government Order. The learned Single Judge, having examined all the aspects of the case, held that the livelihood of the appellant was not dependent on fishing and as such, he was not entitled for compensation on account of the damage caused to the mechanised boat used by him for the purpose of transportation, plying inside the harbour water to carry passengers and cargo to the ships, and dismissed the writ petition by the impugned order. 4. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant has come up with this intra-Court appeal contending that his livelihood was dependent on the said mechanised boat, viz., ML Mangala, which was fully damaged on account of giant tides of Tsunami. It is further contended that the Government Order does not provide for compensation only to the fishing boats, but also to the members of the fishermen community, whose livelihood is dependent upon the boats. Thus, the appellant is entitled to the benefit of compensation under the said Government Order. 5. On the other hand, the learned Special Government Pleader contends in support of the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge. 6. We have examined the rival contentions of the learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and also the documents appended thereto. 7. The relevant passage from the Government Order in G.O. Ms. No. 48, Revenue (NC III) Department dated 29.01.2005 is extracted hereunder for better understanding of its scope: "3. 6. We have examined the rival contentions of the learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and also the documents appended thereto. 7. The relevant passage from the Government Order in G.O. Ms. No. 48, Revenue (NC III) Department dated 29.01.2005 is extracted hereunder for better understanding of its scope: "3. To enable the fishermen to earn their livelihood, the Government, after careful consideration, sanctions the following package of assistance to the affected fishermen:- (a) Replacement of fully damaged wooden catamaran Fishermen whose wooden catamaran has been fully damaged/lost can choose either of the following options: (i) For replacement of fully damaged/lost wooden catamaran with a wooden catamaran, a full subsidy will be of Rs. 32,000/- per catamaran inclusive of net. (ii) For replacement of fully damaged/lost wooden Catamaran with FRP catamaran, engine and net, the subsidy is 35% of the total cost subject to a maximum subsidy of Rs. 52,500/- calculated at a unit cost of Rs. 1.50 lakh. (b) Replacement of fully damaged FRP catamaran for replacement of fully damaged/lost FRP Catamaran, the subsidy is 35% of the total cost subject to a maximum subsidy of Rs. 52,500/- calculated at a unit cost of Rs. 1.50 lakh inclusive of engine and net. (c) Replacement of wooden/FRP vallam For replacement of fully damaged/lost wooden/ FRP vallam, the unit compensation is 35% of the total cost as subsidy subject to a maximum subsidy of Rs. 52,500/- calculated at a unit cost of Rs. 1.50 lakh inclusive of engine and net. 4. Repairs and replacement of mechanised boats Mechanized boats of different sizes have been either fully damaged or partially damaged. The Government sanctions a package for mechanized boats as follows: (i) Repairs: To enable repairs of mechanized boats, the subsidy will be provided at 60% of the assessed value of the damages restricted to a maximum subsidy of Rs. 3 lakh per boat. (ii) Replacements: For replacement of fully damaged/lost mechanizsed boats the subsidy to be paid will be 35% of total cost restricted to a maximum subsidy of Rs. 5 lakhs per boat." 8. The Fisheries Department was directed to enable the fishermen to approach the Banks and the Special Commissioner and the Commissioner of Revenue Administration for processing their applications for grant of a special package as provided under the said Government Order. 5 lakhs per boat." 8. The Fisheries Department was directed to enable the fishermen to approach the Banks and the Special Commissioner and the Commissioner of Revenue Administration for processing their applications for grant of a special package as provided under the said Government Order. Indisputably, the appellant's mechanised boat was registered with the Chennai Port Trust under Harbour Crafts Rules for plying passengers and cargo from the Port Trust to the ships inside the harbour water. The said boat was not engaged or involved in fishing activities and also not registered with the fishing authorities, as required under the provisions of law. Thus, the benefit contemplated under the said Government Order was not available to the appellant despite the fact that his mechanised boat engaged for carrying passengers and cargo inside the harbour water, was damaged due to Tsunami giant tidal waves. 9. The learned Single Judge has considered all the aspects of the matter and has rightly come to the conclusion that the appellant is not entitled to any benefit under the said Government Order, when he is seeking a direction to the respondents to grant compensation package under the said Government Order and not under any other scheme or otherwise. 10. We are, therefore, of the considered opinion that the view taken by the learned Single Judge is just and proper, warranting no interference. 11. As a sequel, the writ appeal stands dismissed.