ORDER : Heard both sides. 2. By consent of both sides, the main Writ Petition itself is taken up for final disposal. 3. According to the Petitioner, he had spent a sum of Rs.1,75,000/- to cleanse the water hycianth accumulated in the tank. Subsequently, on 8.2.2016, he had incurred an expenditure of Rs.15,15,000/- towards purchase of varieties of fish fingerlings. Moreover, on 15.2.2016, he had purchased fish fingerlings for a sum of Rs.10,25,000/-and left all the fish fingerlings in the Periyakulam Tank with a fond hope of harvesting the same after their growth. 4. The stand of the Petitioner is that due to his dismay, all those fish fingerlings died and they were floating in the tank on 29.2.2016. He found that all these fishes had died due to discharge of sewage, drainage all along from the channel running through Jaihindpuram, M.K. Puram, Kovalan Nagar and Ellis Nagar. 5. The grievance of the Petitioner is that in the channel, the sewage of tanning industries are left out and several chemicals, acid wastes are also left out. In short, all these sewage, drainage including Chemicals and acid wastes from tanning industries are allowed to enter into the Periyakulam Tank. In short, Periyakulam Tank is not fit for fish culture and the second respondent/The Assistant Director of Fisheries(Inland Fisheries), Fisheries Department, Pechiamman Padithurai, Madurai had suppressed about the discharge of sewage, drainage into the tank. Since the Petitioner had invested huge sum of Rs.94,19,250/- in the aforesaid Periyakulam Tank, he made a representation, dated 25.4.2016 addressed to the second respondent seeking compensation for the loss occurred to him and also made a request to stop the discharge of chemical sewage, drainage into the Periyakulam Tank as early as possible. However, the second respondent through his proceedings, dated 26.4.2016 had sent a communication stating that they had requested the Pollution Control Board to prevent the discharge of sewage into Periyakulam tank. Till, date, no action is taken against the entry of sewage into the Periyakulam Tank, Ayanpappakudi Village, Madurai south Taluk, Madurai District. 6. The plea of the Petitioner is that the second respondent/The Assistant Director of Fisheries(Inland Fisheries), Fisheries Department, Pechiamman Padithurai, Madurai-1 is vicariously liable to pay compensation to him to an extent of Rs. 94,19,250/-. Till, date, no action is taken against the entry of sewage into the Periyakulam Tank, Ayanpappakudi Village, Madurai south Taluk, Madurai District. 6. The plea of the Petitioner is that the second respondent/The Assistant Director of Fisheries(Inland Fisheries), Fisheries Department, Pechiamman Padithurai, Madurai-1 is vicariously liable to pay compensation to him to an extent of Rs. 94,19,250/-. However, the second respondent had refused to pay compensation stating that as per the tender condition, the Fisheries Department is not liable to pay compensation etc. At the same time, it is contended on behalf of the Petitioner that the second respondent has not taken any steps towards cleansing the Periyakulam Tank and has not stopped the entry of sewage effluence and drainage into the Periyakulam Tank. 7. In response, it is the submission of the learned Additional Government Pleader that the second respondent/The Assistant Director of Fisheries(Inland Fisheries), Madurai in his communication, dated 26.4.2014 addressed to the Petitioner, inter-alia stated that as per the tender agreement conditions, for taking necessary steps to prevent damage of environment conditions, action was instructed to be taken. Further it was informed that for the death of fish, in rules, there is no provision to pay compensation. 8. At this stage, this Court, without going through the contents of the representation of the Petitioner, dated 3.5.2016 addressed to the respondents 1 to 4, is of the considered view that the Petitioner had made a request for changing the water of the tank so as to facilitate the neutering of fish and also to rectify the position of water in the Periyakulam Tank and to remove the discharge of sewage, drainage etc. 9. 9. Not-withstanding the fact that the second respondent had addressed a communication, dated 26.4.2016 to the Petitioner assigning reasons thereto, in view of the fact that the prayer of the Petitioner in the Writ Petition is only to consider his representation, dated 3.5.2016 by the respondents 1 to 4, this Court, in the interest of justice, Equity and Fair Play and even as a matter of prudence, at this stage, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the matter, simply, directs the first respondent to look into the representation of the Petitioner with all earnestness and seriousness and to pass a reasoned speaking order on merits(of course by outlining the process of reasoning with necessary quantitative and qualitative details) with an open and unbiased mind and in a dispassionate matter, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is needless for this Court to make a significant mention that the first respondent is to provide necessary opportunity to the Petitioner and others concerned, if any, by adhering to the principles of natural justice in true letter and spirit before deciding the representation of the Petitioner, dated 3.5.2016. 10. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs.