JUDGMENT : In this second appeal, challenge is made to the Judgement and Decree dated 24.07.2002 passed in A.S.No.1 of 2002 on the file of the Principal District Court, Erode, reversing the Judgment and Decree dated 24.04.2001 passed in O.S.No.44 of 2000 on the file of the First Additional Sub-ordinate Court, Erode. 2. The second appeal has been admitted on the following substantial question of law: “When damage is caused to the plaintiff on account of pollution of noyyal river by industries run by third parties, is the State under an obligation to see that such pollution do not take place and any failure on it's part resulting in damages to the plaintiff as claimed should be compensated by the State?” 3. Considering the scope of the issues involved between the parties as regards the subject matter lying in a narrow compass, it is unnecessary to dwell into the facts of the case in detail. 4. Seeking compensation on the footing that he had started a fish culture unit in his land, after getting scientific opinion and also taking into consideration the various factors by incurring loan from the Bank and it is stated that as the textile units and dyeing units located on the banks of river Noyyal had discharged the effluents of their units into the Noyyal river without treatment and further, inasmuch as the respondent/defendant failed to take necessary action to check and control the units above stated from polluting Noyyal river, it is stated that on account of the pollution caused to the Noyyal river, it is the case of the plaintiff that the entire fish grown by him had died and accordingly, seeking compensation from the defendant, the suit has come to be laid for compensation by the plaintiff/appellant. 5. The case of the defendant, in brief, is that the Major industries of the Thirupur District being only hosiery manufacturing units and accordingly, it is stated that arounding 370 dyeing units had been discharging their effluents after proper treatment and therefore, it is contended that the allegations that Noyyal river had become polluted on account of untreated effluents discharged by the dying units is false. Therefore, it is further stated that the fish reared by plaintiff had not died due to water pollution as projected by the plaintiff and the pollution Control Board is taking proper steps to curb the menace of discharging untreated effluents into the River Noyyal and further there is no privity of contract between the plaintiff and the defendant as regards the payment of any compensation and hence, the suit is liable to be dismissed. 6. In support of the plaintiff's case PWs 1 to 3 were examined and Exs.A1 to A32 were marked. On the side of the defendants, DWs1 & 2 were examined and Exs.B1 to B7 were marked. 7. On a consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the respective parties, the trial Court was pleased to grant a decree in favour of the plaintiff of a sum of Rs.1,94,290/- as compensation and subsequent interest and accordingly, decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff. In the first appellate Court, additional documents have come to be marked on the side of the defendant as Exs.B8 & B9 and the First Appellate Court, on an appreciation of the materials placed on record, was pleased to set aside the judgement and decree of the trial Court and thereby, dismissed the suit laid by the plaintiff. Aggrieved over the same, the present second appeal has been laid. 8. The plaintiff has laid the suit seeking compensation from the Government on the footing that fish grown by him in his land had died due to water pollution and it is the case of the plaintiff that the Noyyal river had become polluted on account of the failure of the Government to check and control the untreated effluents being discharged by the dyeing units located in and around banks of the river Noyyal and therefore, the Government is liable to pay the compensation to the plaintiff for the loss of the fish. 9. 9. The Government has taken the plea that there is no privity of contract as such between the plaintiff and the Government as regards the commencement of the fish culture unit by the plaintiff in his land and therefore, it is contended that the Government is not liable to pay any compensation to the plaintiff as such and further, it is also contended by the Government that the case of the plaintiff that the fish had died due to pollution in the river Noyyal is false and on the other hand, it is stated that the Government had taken appropriate steps to check and control the discharge of the untreated effluents into Noyyal river by the dyeing units located in and around the district and therefore, according to the Government, the plaintiff has no cause of action to lay the suit. 10. As rightly determined by the first appellate Court, there is no privity of contract between the plaintiff and the Government with reference to any indemnification of loss that may be caused to the plaintiff in respect of any loss that may be sustained to the plaintiff with reference to the fish culture unit started by him in his land. Accordingly, when it is found that the plaintiff has not started the fish culture unit in his land with the approval of the Government as such i.e. in the sense that the Government had agreed to indemnify the plaintiff for any loss that may be caused to him as regards the fish culture unit commenced by him, in such view of the matter, in the absence of any contract between the parties with reference to the same and thereby, as rightly determined by the first appellate Court, the plaintiff cannot seek any compensation from the Government for the death of the fish reared by him. 11. The main reason projected by the plaintiff for seeking compensation from the Government is that the Government had failed to check and control the water pollution of river Noyyal and accordingly, as the fish reared by him had died due to water pollution, it is his case that the Government is liable to compensate him. At the foremost, the plaintiff has not established that the fish had died due to water pollution. At the foremost, the plaintiff has not established that the fish had died due to water pollution. The plaintiff has also not placed any material to establish as to the number of fish that had been reared in his unit and the number of which had died etc., and as above stated, when there is no material placed by the plaintiff that the fish reared by him had died due to water pollution on account of the discharge of the untreated effluents by the dyeing units, it is seen that as rightly determined by the first appellate Court, the plaintiff has no cause of action to institute the suit against the Government. 12. In addition to that, the plaintiff has failed to establish that there is any failure on the part of the Government to check and control the discharge of the untreated effluents by the dyeing units into river Noyyal. When it is the specific case of the Government that due steps had been taken by the pollution control Board and accordingly, only treated effluents had been discharged by the dyeing units and also it is the case of the Government that the river Noyyal had not become polluted due to discharge of the untreated effluents of the dyeing units and when as above seen, the plaintiff has failed to establish that the fish grown by him had died due to the water pollution which occurred due to the discharge of the untreated effluents by the dyeing units, accordingly, it is found that the very basis of the plaintiff's case has to fail. 13. Further, as could be seen from the materials placed by the defendant during the course of the first appeal, the fish reared by the fisheries department had not sustained any death due to any pollution of river Noyyal and on the other hand, it is found that the statistics projected would only show the augmentation of the fish catches in the concerned area and such being the position, the contention of the plaintiff that the fish grown by him had died due to water pollution cannot be accepted sans any acceptable and reliable material pointing to the same. Furthermore, when the lie of the plaintiff's land is found to be not near to the Noyyal river and thereby, the possibility of the polluted water getting infiltrated into the plaintiff's area and cause the death of the fish is found to be very remote and in such view of the matter, as rightly determined by the first appellate Court, the plaintiff without any foundation is found to have laid the suit against the Government and accordingly, unable to place any material to seek compensation from the Government. 14. As above noted, when the plaintiff has failed to establish that the fish grown by him in the pond had died due to water pollution and furthermore, when there is no privity of contract between the plaintiff and the Government for any liability on the part of the Government to compensate the plaintiff in the event of any sustainment of loss in the running of the fish culture unit, it could be seen that the first appellate Court is right in rejecting the plaintiff's case and no interference is called for with reference to the same. 15. In the light of the above discussion, the plaintiff having failed to establish that the fish grown by him had died on account of water pollution and further, when the plaintiff has failed to establish that the Government had failed to control the water pollution of the river Noyyal and when the plaintiff has no case to seek compensation from the Government on account of the alleged loss sustained by him in the running of the fish culture unit as no privity of contract exists between him and the Government, it is seen that the plaintiff is not liable to seek any compensation from the Sate government and accordingly, the substantial question of law formulated in the second appeal is answered against the plaintiff. 16. The principles of law outlined in the decision of the Supreme Court reported in Civil Appeal No.6776 of 2009 (Tirupur Dyeing Factory Owners Association Vs. Noyyal River Ayacutdars Protection Association and others) and relied upon by the plaintiff's counsel are taken into consideration and followed as applicable to the case at hand. In conclusion, the second appeal fails and is, accordingly, dismissed with costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition, if any, is closed.