Madras High Court
Kodaikanal Boat And Rowing Club vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 9 July, 2026
Author: N.Sathish Kumar
Bench: N.Sathish Kumar
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
RESERVED ON : 25.06.2026
PRONOUNCED ON : 09.07.2026
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JOTHIRAMAN
W.P.(MD)Nos.5090 of 2020, 15296 of 2021, 7479 of 2023 and 7206 of
2026
and
W.M.P.(MD)No.5891 of 2026
W.P.(MD)No.5090 of 2020:
Kodaikanal Boat and Rowing Club,
Rep.by its Honorary Secretary,
VR Ramachandra Dorairaj,
Lake Road, Kodaikanal. ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep.by its Secretary to Government,
Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department,
Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009.
2.The Commissioner of Municipal Administration
Water Supply Department,
Water Supply Department,
Chepak, Chennai.
3.The District Collector,
Dindigul District, Dindigul.
1/38
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
4.The Tahsildar,
Kodaikanal,
Dindigul District.
5.The Assistant Director of Fisheries,
Dindigul.
6.The Commissioner,
Kodaikanal Municipality,
Dindigul. ...Respondents
PRAYER:- Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the first respondent herein
to forthwith frame the rules and regulations with regard to the
registration and licensing of the boats operated by the Private Boat
Operators as well as Government Agencies as per G.O.Ms.No.105 dated
26.06.2009.
For Petitioner : Mr.Sarath Chandran
for Mr.Gopika Nambiar
For Respondents : Mr.T.Gowthaman (R1 to R3)
Additional Advocate General
assisted by Mr.M.S.Parthiban
Counsel for State
Mr.T.S.Mohammed Mohideen (R4)
Standing Counsel
W.P.(MD)No.15296 of 2021:
M/s.Kodaikanal Boat and Rowing Club,
Rep.by its Honorary Secretary,
Lake Road, Kodaikanal ... Petitioner
Vs.
2/38
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1.The Commissioner of Land Administration
Chepak, Chennai-600 005.
2.The District Collector,
Dindigul District, Dindigul.
3.The Commissioner,
Kodaikanal Municipality,
Kodaikanal. ...Respondents
PRAYER:- Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the second respondent
District Collector to renew the lease in favour of the petitioner Club in
respect of the land to an extent of 0.08 acres classified as lake poramboke
in Sy.No.234 of Kodaikanal Town and Taluk beyond the year 2022.
For Petitioner : Mr.Isaac Mohanlal
Senior Counsel
for M/s.Isaac Chambers
For Respondents : Mr.T.Gowthaman (R1 & R2)
Additional Advocate General
assisted by Mr.M.S.Parthiban
Counsel for State
Mr.T.S.Mohammed Mohideen (R3)
Standing Counsel
W.P.(MD)No.7479 of 2023:
M/s.Kodaikanal Boat and Rowing Club,
Rep.by its Honorary Secretary,
Lake Road, Kodaikanal ... Petitioner
Vs.
3/38
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1.The Additional Chief Secretary to Government,
Municipal Administration and Water
Supply Department,
Fort St.George, Secretariat,
Chennai-600 009.
2.The Director of Municipal Administration
and Water Supply,
No.78, Urban Administrative Building,
Santhome High Road,
Chennai-600 028.
3.The Commissioner,
Kodaikanal Municipality,
Kodaikanal. ...Respondents
PRAYER:- Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the first respondent to
consider and pass orders on the representation of the petitioner dated
12.12.2022 as as to include the petitioner as an undertaking authority
under the Kodaikanal Municipal Lake Boating (Regulations) By-Laws,
2022 within a time frame fixed by this Court.
For Petitioner : Mr.Isaac Mohanlal
Senior Counsel
for M/s.Isaac Chambers
For Respondents : Mr.T.Gowthaman (R1 & R2)
Additional Advocate General
assisted by Mr.M.S.Parthiban
Counsel for State
Mr.T.S.Mohammed Mohideen (R3)
Standing Counsel
4/38
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.7206 of 2026:
Kodaikanal Boat and Rowing Club,
Rep.by its Honorary Secretary,
Lake Road, Kodaikanal,
Dindigul District. ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The State of Tamil Nadu,
Represented by its Secretary to Government,
Municipal Administration and Water
Supply (MAWS1) Department,
Secretariat, Fort St.George,
Chennai-600 009.
2.The Director of Municipal Administration,
75, Urban Administrative Building,
MRC Nagar, Santhome High Road,
Chennai.
3.The District Collector,
Dindigul District,
Dindigul.
4.The Commissioner,
Kodaikanal Municipality,
Kodaikanal. ...Respondents
PRAYER:- Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, to issue a Writ of Declaration, to declare the provisions of Rule
3(1) of the Kodaikanal Municipal Lake Boating (Regulation) Bye-laws,
2022 in G.O.(Ms)No.165, dated 16.11.2022 of the first respondent as
manifestly arbitrary and violative of the provisions of Article 14 and 19
of the Constitution of India.
5/38
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
For Petitioner : Mr.Sarath Chandran
for Ms.Gopika Nambiar
For Respondents : Mr.T.Gowthaman (R1 to R3)
Additional Advocate General
assisted by Mr.M.S.Parthiban,
Counsel for the State
Mr.T.S.Mohammed Mohideen (R4)
Standing Counsel
COMMON ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.)
The issue involved in all these writ petitions are identical and
hence, all these writ petitions are taken up together for final disposal by
way of this common order.
2.The Kodaikanal Boat and Rowing Club filed; W.P.(MD)No.
7206 of 2026 seeking a prayer to declare the provisions of Rule 3(1) of
the Kodaikanal Municipal Lake Boating (Regulation) Bye-Laws, 2022 in
G.O.Ms.No.165 dated 16.11.2022 of the first respondent as manifestly
arbitrary and violative of the provisions of Article 14 and 19 of the
Constitution of India; W.P.(MD)No.5090 of 2020 to frame Rules and
Regulations with regard to registration of licence of the boats operated
by the Private Boat Operators as well as the Government Agencies; W.P.
6/38
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
(MD)No.15296 of 2021 to execute lease agreement by renewing the
lease of the Government land to an extent of 0.08 acres classified as lake
poramboke in S.No.234 of Kodaikanal Town and Taluk in favour of
Kodaikanal Boat and Rowing Club and W.P.(MD)No.7479 of 2023 to
consider the representation of the petitioner dated 12.12.2022 seeking to
include the petitioner as an undertaking authority under the Kodaikanal
Municipal Lake Boating (Regulations) Bye-Laws, 2022.
3.The brief facts leading to the filing of these writ petitions are
as follows:
(i)The Kodaikanal Boat and Rowing Club is a registered
Society established in the year 1890 by Henry Levinge, who was a
former Collector of Madurai. In 1863, an existing swamp in Kodaikanal
was transformed into a beautiful lake, which has become one of the
major tourist attractions in Kodaikanal. A piece of land in Survey No.
234 was purchased from a private person, on which premises, present
club was built in the year 1892 and that six cents of land is a private
property of the club. It is also recognized by the Collector vide
proceedings dated 08.04.1909. Besides, 8 cents of land in the same
survey number was given on lease as per the proceedings dated
7/38
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
08.04.1921 for a period of 49 years. On expiry of the said period, thelease was renewed on 03.09.1975 for a period of 49 years from
01.09.1970 vide proceedings dated 27.03.1974.
(ii)The management of the Club is vested in a Committee
consisting of 15 members, who are elected annually by the General Body
of the Club. The Collector of Madurai is the ex-officio Chairman and the
Director of Tourism, Government of India is one of the Committee
Members. The petitioner Club is also authorized by the Sports
Development Authority of Tamil Nadu to conduct training, talent
identification and talent development programs in the sport of rowing.
Till 1951, the Kodaikanal Township was in charge of the Management of
the lake. Thereafter, the Management of the Lake was vested with the
Fisheries Department.
(iii)Later, there was a dispute between the Municipality and
Fisheries Department as to the ownership of the lake from the year 1980.
The Kodaikanal Municipality also levied license fee on the petitioner
club, which was challenged in W.P.No.5985 of 1987. This Court by an
order dated 30.01.1995 held that the Kodaikanal Municipality has no
8/38
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
authority to demand and collect licence fee or any other fee or tax from
the Club. The said order was confirmed in W.A.No.758 of 1995.
(iv)When the mater stood thus, on 26.06.2009, G.O.Ms.No.105
came to be issued to resolve the long standing dispute between the
Kodaikanal Municipality and Fisheries Department. As per the said
Government Order, the overall control of the Kodaikanal Lake was
transferred to the Kodaikanal Municipality from the Fisheries
Department and vest with the Kodaikanal Municipality under Section
125 (1) of the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act, 1920 (hereinafter
referred to as ‘the Act’).
(v)The Fisheries Department was given rights in line with the
provisions of G.O.(Ms)No.1123 dated 10.04.1970. As per the said
Government Order, the registration and licensing were made mandatory
for the boats operated by private boat operators as well as the
Government agencies for fishing and boating in Kodaikanal Lake. The
boating activities will be regulated by the Fisheries Department through
registration and license issued by the Assistant Director, Fisheries,
Dindigul and was renewed annually on payment as declared by the
9/38
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Government. The income derived from the registration and licensing of
boats shall be shared between the Kodaikanal Municipality and Fisheries
Department in the ratio of 90:10. The total number of boats permitted to
operate on the Lake shall not exceed 258 at any given point of time. In
pursuant to the aforesaid Government Order, the club was operating its
boats after duly obtaining license.
(vi) In the meantime, the petitioner filed W.P.(MD)No.5090 of
2020 seeking a direction to the respondent to notify the Kodaikanal Lake
Boating Rules. This Court by an order dated 16.12.2021 directed the
authorities to frame Rules. Pursuant to the said direction, the impugned
Rules came to be passed. The said Rule is challenged before this Court
on the ground that it is contrary to the conditions stipulated in the parent
Government Order and ultra vires the said Government Order. It is
further contended that the Rule has been framed without any enabling
power and by excluding private operators altogether from the purview of
eligibility for the grant of boating licences, it runs directly contrary to
Clauses 7(iii) and 7(vi) of the parent Government Order.
10/38
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
(vii)The present Government Order has been issued in exercise
of powers conferred under Section 306 of Act, which clearly states that
the Government may make by-laws not inconsistent with this Act or with
any other law. G.O.Ms.No.105, the parent Government Order was issued
in exercise of executive power within the meaning of Article 13 of the
Constitution of India. Therefore, excluding the private operators,
contrary to G.O.Ms.No.105 dated 26.06.2009, itself is violation and
inconsistent.
4.1.Counter has been filed admitting that G.O.Ms.No.105 dated
26.06.2009 was passed vesting the management of the Lake with
Municipality and fishing rights with the Fisheries Department in line
with the provisions of G.O.(Ms)No.1123, Agriculture Department, dated
10.04.1970 (Kodaikanal Fishing Rules, 1969). It is also admitted that the
registration and licensing is made mandatory for the boats operated by
private boat operators as well as the Government Agencies as per Rules
to be framed by the Animal Husbandry Dairying and Fisheries
Department in consultation with Municipal Administration and Water
Supply Department for fishing and boating in Kodaikanal Lake.
11/38
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
4.2.It is also stated that the impugned Government Order has
modified the bylaws, wherein Rule 3 of the By-law clearly stipulates that
the Municipality or Undertaking authority that for registration of boat,
shall apply in Form I with necessary fee as specified in the Annexure
appended to these by-laws to the competent authority for registration of
boat to ply in the lake for pleasure trip. Hence, it is the contention that
when the Rule excluded the private operation or private body, which is
registered under the Societies Registration Act, the petitioner has no
locus to maintain this writ petition. The registration of boat to ply in the
lake for pleasure trip means the pleasure activities specifically for
enjoyment, recreation or relaxation rather than for business or necessity.
This pleasure activity or pleasure trip to be made by private boat club
such as this petitioner for their member at free of cost and for public by
collecting fee is a commercial activity and which do not fall within the
meaning of sports and more particularly it is not the object of petitioner
club.
4.3.The club cannot hold commercial activity in the lake,
which is vested with the local body. Collecting fee from the public by a
private club cannot be brought within the meaning of entertainment or
12/38
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
sport activity. The public lake now under the care and control of the
Municipality cannot be given to a private club. If the public lake is
allowed to be used by a private Society, then there should be a open
tender call to allow all other public to make use of the lake for
commercial activity.
4.4.As per Section 109-A of the Tamil Nadu Urban Local
Bodies Act, no boating activity for entertainment shall be carried on, in
any water body vested with any Municipality without registering the
boats and obtaining licence in such a manner as may be specified in the
bye-laws. On 10.09.222, a resolution was passed by the Municipality,
whereby the Council authorised the municipality to give public notice to
receive objections and advises from public with regard to boating
regulations draft bye-laws, 2022, which was approved by the Kodaikanal
Municipal Council on 12.08.2022. As no objection has been received by
anyone, that By-laws have been accepted by the Government, therefore,
the same cannot be questioned now. Further, the petitioner also cannot
have extension of lease.
13/38
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
5.1.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in all
these writ petitions submitted that the by-laws presently in force cannot
override the parent Government Order, namely G.O.Ms.No.105 dated
26.06.2009, issued under Section 125 of the Act. It was contended that
Section 125 of the Act empowers the Government, by notification, to
limit or define control over any public source of water supply and the
adjoining public lands, or to assume administration thereof, after
consulting the Municipal Council and giving due consideration to its
objections, if any.
5.2.According to the learned counsel, the Government Order
issued under the said provision constitutes a conditional arrangement, in
which the Government has specifically defined the extent of control and
fishing rights vested in the Fisheries Department consistent with
G.O.Ms.No.1123 dated 10.04.1970. The Government Order further
provides that boating activities in the lake shall be regulated by the
Fisheries Department.
5.3.The parent Government Order also stipulates that
registration and licensing shall be mandatory for all boats operated by
14/38
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
private boat operators as well as Government agencies. Further, the
Government Order makes it mandatory for all boat operators and
agencies to obtain licences in accordance with the Rules framed by the
Animal Husbandry and Fisheries Department, in consultation with the
Municipality, for the purpose of regulating fishing and boating activities
in the Kodaikanal Lake. Hence, it is the contention that the above said
Government order is the source of power.
5.4.Section 306 of the Act, 1920 clearly shows that any by law
cannot be inconsistent with the Act. The very by-law clearly shows that
the competent authority is the Commissioner of Municipality and the
Municipality can be the Licensor as well as the Licensee. According to
the petitioners, such an arrangement is contrary to the principles
embodied in Sections 151 and 152 of the Easements Act. At any event,
the by-laws totally excluded to the private operators, which is contrary to
the parent Government Order.
6.The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Municipality
submitted that the petitioner Club has no locus standi to maintain the
present writ petition, as it has been operating the boat house for
15/38
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
commercial purposes and is attempting to monopolize the entire boating
activity in the lake. If the petitioner is permitted, it will lead to others
also to claim such right.
7.It was further contended that the power to regulate boating
activities is vested in the Municipality under Section 109 of the Tamil
Nadu Urban Local Bodies Act. Pursuant thereto, the Municipality has
framed the relevant by-laws after inviting objections from the public.
Since no objections were received during the prescribed period, the
validity of the by-laws cannot now be challenged.
8.The learned Additional Advocate General also submitted that
the entire lake was vested with the Municipality as per the parent
Government Order. Therefore, the petitioner Club cannot dictate to the
Government or the Municipality the manner in which boating activities
are to be regulated or administered. It was argued that the private
operators have now been excluded and it is the exclusive prerogative of
the Government and the Municipality to decide whether licences should
be granted and to whom they should be issued.
16/38
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
9.The learned Additional Advocate General also contended that
the petitioner Society cannot, as a matter of right, seek a direction from
this Court for the grant of a licence or for the extension or renewal of any
lease in its favour. Any such permission or licence is subject to the
discretion of the competent authority and cannot be claimed as an
enforceable legal entitlement.
10.Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and
perused the materials placed on record.
11.Though the writ petitions are clubbed together, we propose
to treat W.P.(MD) No.7206 of 2026, which challenges the validity of
Rule 3(3) of the Kodaikanal Municipal Lake Boating (Regulation) Bye-
laws, 2022, framed vide G.O.(Ms) No.165 dated 16.11.2022, as the lead
writ petition. This is because the reliefs sought in the other two writ
petitions are consequential in nature and are ultimately subject to the
outcome of the main writ petition.
12.It is not in dispute that the Kodaikanal Boat and Rowing
Club is a registered Society in the year 1890 and the club was founded by
17/38
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
the then Collector of Madurai. It is also not disputed that the Club
building was constructed in the year 1892 on the land purchased by the
Society. Further, by proceedings dated 08.04.1909, the Collector of
Madurai recognised the said property to an extent of 6 cents in Survey
No.234, on which the Club building stands, constitutes the private
property of the Club. Besides, another 8 cents was leased out to the club
as early as on 08.04.1921 for a period of 49 years. On expiry of the said
period on 03.09.1975, further extension for another period of 49 years
was granted from 01.09.1970. These facts pleaded in the affidavit filed
in support of this petition, are not disputed in the counter filed by the
respondents.
13.Now the challenge is made only with regard to the by-laws
made under the Government Order in G.O.(Ms) No.165 dated
16.11.2022, which is impugned before this Court.
14.Initially, the overall control of the Lake was with the
Fisheries Department by virtue of G.O.Ms.No.2063, Development
Department dated 09.05.1951 and G.O.Ms.No.2034, Food and
Agriculture Department, dated 07.06.1962. Later by virtue of the power
18/38
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
conferred under Section 125(1) of the Act, the overall control of the
Kodaikanal Lake was transferred to the Kodaikanal Municipality from
the Fisheries Department by virtue of G.O.Ms.No.105 dated 26.06.2009.
15.For proper appreciation of the issue, it is useful to refer to
Section 125 of the District Municipalities Act, which reads as follows:
“125. Vesting of works in Municipal Councils .— (1) All
public watercourses and springs and all public reservoirs, tanks,
cisterns, fountains, wells, stand-pipes, and other water-works
existing at the time of the coming into force of this Act or
afterwards made, laid or erected, and whether made, laid or
erected at the cost of the Municipal Council or otherwise, and
also any adjacent land (not being private property) appertaining
thereto shall vest in the Council and be subject to its control :
1 [Provided that nothing contained in this section shall
apply to any work which is, or is connected with, a work of
irrigation or to any adjacent land appertaining to any such
work.]
(2) The 2 [State Government] may, by notification, limit
or define such control or may assume the administration of any
public source of water-supply and public land adjacent and
appertaining thereto after consulting the Municipal Council and
giving due regard to its objections, if any.
19/38
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
16.The above said provision makes it very clear that by issuing
a Government order under Section 125 of the Act, the State Government
may limit or define the control in the lake.
17.G.O.Ms.No.105, was mainly passed based on the
recommendations of the Sub-Committee, vesting overall control of the
lake to the Municipality to sort out the disputes between the Fisheries
Department and Kodaikanal Municipality. The relevant portion of the
said Government Order is extracted below for ready reference:
“6.Based on the recommendations of the Sub-Committee, a
follow-up meeting was held on 24.4.2009 under the Chairmanship of the
Secretary to Government, Animal Husbandry, Dairying and Fisheries
Department with the Commissioner of Fisheries, Director of Municipal
Administration and other officials concerned and the following decisions
were taken at the meeting:-
(i) to issue suitable Government orders and notification for
transfer of overall control of Kodaikanal lake to the
Kodaikanal Municipality from the Fisheries Department as per
Section 125 (1) of the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act,
1920.
(ii) the fishing rights will continue to be with the Fisheries
Department in line with the provisions of the G.O.(Ms)No.20/38
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1123, Agriculture Department, dated 10.4.1970 (Kodaikanal
Fishing Rules 1969). As fishing related activities will be
affected by the movement of boats, it was decided not to allow
any kind of motorized boats. The boating activities will be
regulated by the Fisheries Department through registration
and licenses issued by the Assistant Director, Fisheries,
Dindigul and renewed annually on the payment as decided by
the Government.
(iii) the registration and licensing will be made mandatory for the
boats operated by private boat operators as well as the
Government Agencies as per the rules to be framed especially
for fishing and boating in Kodaikanal lake.
(iv) The income derived from registration and licensing of boats
will be shared between the Kodaikanal Municipality and the
Fisheries on 90:10 ratio (as the Municipality will have to
maintain the lake and its surrounding areas, which can be met
from the income of this activity)
(v) the income derived from registration and licensing of boats will
be utilized for developmental activities such as development
and maintenance of roads, drains, lights, waste management,
parks, beautification, water supply, sanitation and related
activities in and around the lake by the Kodaikanal
Municipality.
(vi) A Committee under the Chairmanship of the District Collector
will be formed for the monitoring and supervision of
registration and licensing of boats, regularization of boating
and safety measures and also utilization of funds for various
developmental activities and maintenance works in and21/38
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
around the lake. The proposed Committee may comprise of the
following members:
a)Chairman - Kodaikanal Municipality
b) Commissioner - Kodaikanal Municipality
c) Assistant Director- Fisheries Department
Dindigul.
d) Any other technical members co-opted by the
Collector to address specific issues.
(vii) it has also been decided that the boat strength shall not exceed
258 at any cost and the existing boat strength of 284 will be
reduced to 258.
(viii) the Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department
will initiate action for issuing orders for the transfer of control
of Kodaikanal lake from the Fisheries Department to the
Kodaikanal Municipality in consultation with Animal
Husbandry, Dairying and Fisheries Department. After the
issue of Government orders as mentioned above, action will be
taken to notify the same in the Government Gazette.
(ix) Animal Husbandry, Dairying, and Fisheries Department will
initiate action to frame draft rules for fishing and boating in
consultation with Municipal Administration and Water Supply
Department.
7. In the circumstances, the Government after careful considerations
have decided to accept the decisions arrived at in para 6 above, based
on the recommendations of the Sub-committee and direct that:-
(i) in supersession of the orders issued in G.O.(Ms) No.2063,
Development department dated 9.5.1951 and G.O.(Ms) No.22/38
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2034 Food and Agriculture Department dated 7.6.1962, the
overall control of the Kodaikanal lake in Survey Ward B, Block
30, T.S. No.3, R.S.No.234 is transferred to the Kodaikanal
Municipality from the Fisheries Department as per section 125
(1) of the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act, 1920 (Tamil
Nadu Act V of 920).
(ii) the fishing rights will continue to be with the Fisheries
Department in line with the provisions of the G.O.(Ms) No.
1123, Agriculture Department, dated 10.4.1970 (Kodaikanal
Fishing Rules 1969). As fishing related activities will be
affected by the movement of boats, any kind of motorized boats
shall not be allowed. The boating activities will be regulated
by the Fisheries Department through registration and licenses
issued by the Assistant Director, Fisheries, Dindigul and
renewed annually on the payment as decided by the
Government.
(iii) the registration and licensing is made mandatory for the boats
operated by private boat operators as well as the Government
Agencies as per the rules to be framed by Animal Husbandry
Dairying and Fisheries Department in consultation with
Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department for
fishing and boating in Kodaikanal lake.
(iv) The income derived from registration and licensing of boats
shall be shared between the Kodaikanal Municipality and the
Fisheries Department on 90:10 ratio and that will be utilized for
developmental activities such as development and maintenance
of roads, drains, lights, waste management, parks,23/38
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
beautification, water supply, sanitation and related activities in
and around the lake by the Kodaikanal Municipality.
(v) A Committee under the Chairmanship of the District Collector
is formed with the following members for the monitoring and
supervision of registration and licensing of boats,
regularization of boating and safety measures and also
utilization of funds for various developmental activities and
maintenance works in and around the lake.
(1) Chairman – Kodaikanal Municipality
(2) Commissioner – Kodaikanal Municipality
(3) Assistant Director – Fisheries Department Dindigul.
(4) Any other technical members co-opted by the Collector
to address specific issues.
(vi) the boat strength shall not exceed 258 at any cost and the
existing boat strength of 284 is reduced to 258.”
18.A careful perusal of the above Government Order makes it
clear that entire exercise has taken place in pursuant to the power vested
under Section 125 of Act. Clause 6(ii) of the impugned Government
Order provides that, while the overall control and management of the
Lake is vested in the Municipality, the boating activities shall be
regulated by the Fisheries Department through the registration and
licensing of boats by the Assistant Director of Fisheries, Dindigul. Such
24/38
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
licences are required to be renewed annually on payment of fee as may beprescribed by the Government.
19.Clause 6 (iii) of the impugned Government Order shows
that licensing will be made mandatory for the boats operated by the
private boat operators as well as the Government Agencies as per the
Rules to be framed, especially for fishing and boating in Kodaikanal
Lake. It is also restricted that the boat strength shall not exceed 258 at
any costs and the existing boat strength of 284 will be reduced to 258.
20.Further, Clause 6 (ix) of the Government Order provides
that the Animal Husbandry, Dairying and Fisheries Department will
initiate action to frame draft rules for fishing and boating in consultation
with Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department.
21.The Government has accepted the recommendations of the
Sub Committee and held that the fishing rights will be continued with the
Fisheries Department in line with G.O.Ms.No.1123, Agriculture
Department, dated 10.04.1970. Sub Clause 7 (iii) of the impugned
Government Order stipulates that registration and licensing is made
25/38
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
mandatory for the boats operated by the private boat operators as well asthe Government Agencies as per the rules to be framed by the Animal
Husbandry and Dairying and Fisheries Department in consultation with
Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department for fishing and
boating in Kodaikanal lake.
22.Clause 9 of the Government Order directs that Animal
Husbandry and Fisheries Department to initiate action to frame the draft
rules for fishing and boating in Kodaikanal Lake in consultation with
Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department.
23.Thus, while vesting the overall control and management of
the Lake in the Municipality, the Government has expressly defined and
limited the scope of such control. In particular, the fishing rights have
been retained by the Fisheries Department, and the power to register and
license boats operating in the Kodaikanal Lake has been specifically
entrusted to the Animal Husbandry, Dairying and Fisheries Department,
in consultation with the Municipal Administration and Water Supply
Department, for the purpose of regulating fishing and boating activities
in the Lake.
26/38
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
24.G.O.Ms.No.105, which is a source for framing by-laws
clearly provides for operation of boats by the private boat operators.
Once a notification is issued under Section 125 of the Act, it assumes the
character of conditional legislation and constitutes the very source of
power. Consequently, any Bye-law framed pursuant thereto cannot be
inconsistent with or depart from the same.
25.However, now the by-laws, vide G.O.Ms.No.165, which is
impugned herein, have been issued under Section 310 (1) of the Tamil
Nadu District Municipalities Act, 1920 (Tamil Nadu Act V of 1920)
amended by the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities (Amendment) Act,
2021 (Tamil Nadu Act 34 of 2021), empowers the Council of Kodaikanal
Municipality to make by-laws for boating activities within the limits of
Municipality with effect from 13.10.2021.
26.The definition clause in the by-laws provides that ‘the
competent authority’ means the Commissioner of Kodaikanal
Municipality and ‘the undertaking authority’ means the Tamil Nadu
Tourism Development Corporation functioning under the Government of
27/38
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Tamilnadu, and the ‘fitness certificate’ means a certificate issued in
Form-VI by the Competent Authority.
27.Para 3 of the by-laws shows that the Municipality or
undertaking authority shall apply in Form-I with necessary fee as
specified in the Annexure appended to these by-laws, to the competent
authority for registration of boat to ply in the lake for pleasure trip.
Provided that the Municipality or undertaking authority shall apply
immediately within 30 days to the competent authority for registration of
boats.
28.The above provision makes it clear that even the
Municipality is entitled to apply for registration before the competent
authority. As per the definition clause, the “competent authority” is none
other than the Commissioner of the Kodaikanal Municipality. The
requirement of the Municipality obtaining permission from its own
Commissioner, who is designated as the competent authority, appears to
be a logical inconsistency.
28/38
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
29.Further, the undertaking authority defined in the definition
clause is the Tamil Nadu Tourism Development Corporation functioning
under the Government of Tamil Nadu. The by-laws have empowered the
boating activities only either by the Municipality or Tamil Nadu Tourism
Development Corporation. It is relevant to note that these by-laws have
been passed under Section 306 of the Act. Section 306 of the Act reads
as if the power of council to make by-laws not inconsistent with this Act
or with any other law to provide. Therefore, any Bye-laws framed under
the said provision must necessarily be consistent with the Act.
30.It is relevant to note that the impugned Bye-laws completely
exclude private operators from the scope of boating activities. However,
the original Government Order makes it clear that registration and
licensing are mandatory for both private operators as well as Government
agencies.
31.G.O.(Ms) No.105, which vests the overall control of the
Lake in the Kodaikanal Municipality, has been issued under Section 125
of the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act, 1920. Sub-section (2) of
Section 125 empowers the State Government to define and limit such
29/38
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
control. While the Government Order entrusts the overall control of the
Lake to the Municipality, it also imposes specific restrictions, such as
retaining fishing rights and regulating boating activities through the
concerned departments. Importantly, it contemplates the participation of
both private boat operators and Government agencies, subject to
regulation through registration and licensing.
32.Once the Government Order has been issued under Section
125 of the Act, it assumes the character of a conditional legislation as
defined under Article 13 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, any
Bye-laws framed thereunder must necessarily conform to the conditions
stipulated in the parent Government Order. Any provision in the Bye-
laws which is contrary to or inconsistent with the earlier Government
Order, which permits participation of private operators as well, cannot be
sustained in law.
33.The parent Government Order constitutes the very source of
power for the Municipality. The authority of the Municipality is defined
and circumscribed by Section 125(2) of the Act. Consequently, the Bye-
laws framed in exercise of such power must remain within the limits so
30/38
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
prescribed. Excluding private operators altogether, contrary to the
scheme of the Government Order, is in clear contravention of the original
Government Order and is therefore unsustainable in the eye of law.
34.It is also stated that the Boat Club is recognised by the
Sports Development Authority of Tamil Nadu for conducting rowing
activities in the sport of rowing in the State. This Court, in W.P.(MD) No.
5090 of 2020, while disposing of the writ petition, has observed that the
rules to be framed must take into consideration both the Club as well as
the Municipality. Therefore, when the original source of power itself
permits private operators to apply for licence, the subsequent Bye-laws,
which is totally inconsistent with the earlier Government Order, cannot
be sustained in the eye of law.
35.Further, it is relevant to note that the Boat Club was
established as early as in the year 1890 and has been continuously
operating boating activities. The Government has also recognised its
activities and has extended the lease from time to time from 1921
onwards. The lease was given originally for a period of 49 years from
08.04.1921. On expiry, it was again renewed on 03.09.1975 for a further
31/38
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
period of 49 years from 01.09.1970. Therefore, it is only in recent times
that the lease has expired and the impugned order has been passed.
36.In view of the long-standing operation of the Club, the
petitioner had a legitimate expectation to continue its activities, subject
of course to regulatory control. While the Club cannot claim exclusivity
or monopoly over boating activities, it can legitimately expect that it
would not be excluded from consideration for grant of licence under the
regulatory framework.
37.The records further indicate that on 12.12.1969, the
Township of Kodaikanal granted Rs.5,000/- to the Boat Club as grant for
maintenance for the year 1969-70 in G.O.Ms.No.1825, RD & IA, dated
25.09.1969. Continuously such grant was extended for carrying out
works in the lake as per the proceedings in Roc.No.7017/6A-E, dated
30.04.1970. The Government of India, Ministry of Tourism and Civil
Aviation, Department of Tourism by proceedings No.8-TPL.II (3)/70
dated 02.05.1973, given a sum of Rs.60,000/- as grant in aid to the club
for construction of the Tourist Lounge.
32/38
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
38.Similarly, by proceedings No.8 TPL-II(3) /70-Tourism dated
17.05.1976 grant in aid of Rs.36,000/- was given by the Government.
The Government of Tamil Nadu Department of Tourism, vide
proceedings dated 12.06.1978 permitted the club to levy the daily
membership subscription not exceeding Rs.1/- per day to the
Indian/Foreign tourists coming to the Kodaikanal. Again, on 02.01.1979,
by proceedings No.8-TPL.II (3)/70-Tourism, dated 02.01.1979,
sanctioned the permitted daily membership not exceeding Rs.1.50 per
day.
39.Later agreement of lease dated 26.10.2009 between Rowing
Federation of India, Tamil Nadu Amateur Rowing Association and
Kodaikanal Boat Club came to be executed. The letter in R.C.No.MS
Office No.25/2023 dated 17.04.2024, the Sports Development Authority
of Tamil Nadu granted authorisation to the Kodaikanal Boat and Rowing
Club for a period of three years from 16.04.2024 to 15.04.2027 to the
purpose of development of the sport of Rowing and other water sports
through High Altitude Training Programme and Talent Identification and
Talent Development within the state of Tamil Nadu in coordination with
SDAT.
33/38
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
40.The materials placed on record clearly establish that the
Boat Club was established long back and has been continuously
operating boating activities for several decades. Originally, G.O.(Ms) No.
105 vested the overall control of the Kodaikanal Lake in the
Municipality and also contemplated the participation of private
operators. Therefore, when the Club has been exercising its rights all
along, it cannot be excluded altogether from consideration.
41. In view of the above, we are of the considered view that the
impugned Bye-laws, being contrary to G.O.(Ms) No.105, which is the
source of power to the Municipality, cannot be sustained in the eye of
law. Accordingly, Bye-law 3(1) is quashed and W.P.(MD)No.7206 of
2026 stands allowed. The authorities are directed to frame fresh Bye-
laws in consultation with the Animal Husbandry, Dairying and Fisheries
Department, as contemplated in G.O.(Ms) No.105, permitting
participation of private boat clubs also, subject to appropriate
restrictions, licence fee and such other conditions as may be imposed by
the competent authority.
34/38
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
42.The private boat club shall also be permitted to operate
boats for sports activities. However, the number of boats that may be
operated by private clubs can be regulated and capped by the authorities.
The contention that the Club is operating 74 boats does not confer any
vested right to continue the same number of boats. It is open to the
authorities, while framing fresh Bye-laws, to impose appropriate
restrictions on the number of boats and to grant permission to the Boat
Club to operate only such number of boats as may be determined, subject
to payment of requisite licence fee and compliance with regulatory
conditions.
43.Since Rule 3(1) of the Bye-laws has been set aside, W.P.
(MD) No.5090 of 2026 has become infructuous, and no further orders
are required to be passed therein.
44.The overall control of the Lake continues to vest with the
Municipality under G.O.(Ms) No.105. However, the petitioner cannot, as
a matter of right, seek extension of the lease period. At best, the
petitioner may have a legitimate expectation that its case will be
considered in accordance with the new Bye-laws to be framed by the
35/38
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
authorities, permitting participation of private boat clubs subject to
regulatory conditions. Accordingly, W.P.(MD)Nos.15296 of 2021 and
7479 of 2023 are disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
[N.S.K., J.] & [M.J.R., J.]
09.07.2026
Index :Yes/No
Internet :Yes
ta
To
1.The Secretary to Government,
Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department,
Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009.
2.The Commissioner of Municipal Administration
Water Supply Department,
Water Supply Department,
Chepak, Chennai.
3.The District Collector,
Dindigul District, Dindigul.
4.The Tahsildar,
Kodaikanal,
Dindigul District.
5.The Assistant Director of Fisheries,
Dindigul.
36/38
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
6.The Commissioner,
Kodaikanal Municipality,
Dindigul.
7.The Commissioner of Land Administration
Chepak, Chennai-600 005.
8.The Additional Chief Secretary to Government,
Municipal Administration and Water
Supply Department,
Fort St.George, Secretariat,
Chennai-600 009.
9.The Director of Municipal Administration
and Water Supply,
No.78, Urban Administrative Building,
Santhome High Road,
Chennai-600 028.
37/38
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.
AND
M.JOTHIRAMAN, J.
ta
Pre-delivery order made in
W.P.(MD)Nos.5090 of 2020,
15296 of 2021, 7479 of 2023
and 7206 of 2026
09.07.2026
38/38
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
