# Matsya Jivi Sahkari Samiti Limited v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2024) 2 ILRA 456
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-01-12
- **Case number:** Writ C No. 26978 of 2023
- **Bench:** Mahesh Chandra Tripathi, Surendra Singh-I
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/matsya-jivi-sahkari-samiti-limited-v-state-of-u-p-ors-51432
- **Pages:** 22

## Headnote

Civil Law - Constitution of India,1950Article 226-U.P. Cooperative Societies ActThe petitioner challenged the government
order dated 10.01.2019 and subsequent
decisions regarding fishing rights on the
Yamuna
river-the
petitioner
also
contested
the
auction
process
and
allocation of fishing rights in favor of
another
cooperative
society-the
petitioner claimed discrimination and
violation of fundamental rights-Held,
the petitioner's operational area was
confined to a specific block in Etawah,
as per their registration-It emphasized
the
government's
intention
to
prioritize weaker sections and local
communities in granting fishing rightsThe court ruled that the government's
preferential
framework
for
fishing
rights was constitutional and aligned
with the Directive Principles of State
Policy.(Para 1 to 48)

The writ petition is dismissed. .( E-6)

List of cases cited:

## Text

_Characters 0–39,975 of 75,738. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39975 for what follows._

456 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

55. Taking into consideration the
aforementioned legal preposition as well as
factual matrix of the case, this Court is of
the considered view that the impugned
order dated 14.09.2018 passed by the
District
Magistrate/Collector,
Mainpuri
(respondent no.3) in Case No.1858 of 2018,
in so far as it relates to the decision to suo
moto proceed for the cancellation of the
allotment and lease in question and the
consequential actions, if any, against the
petitioner being unwarranted are not at all
sustainable in law. The same are liable to
be set aside and are hereby set aside.

56. Accordingly, the writ petition
succeeds and is allowed. No order as to
costs.
----------
(2024) 2 ILRA 456
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 12.01.2024
BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MAHESH CHANDRA
TRIPATHI, J.
THE HON'BLE SURENDRA SINGH-I, J.

Writ C No. 26978 of 2023

Matsya Jivi Sahkari Samiti Limited
 ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Arvind Srivastava

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Kundan Kumar

Civil Law - Constitution of India,1950Article 226-U.P. Cooperative Societies ActThe petitioner challenged the government
order dated 10.01.2019 and subsequent
decisions regarding fishing rights on the
Yamuna
river-the
petitioner
also
contested
the
auction
process
and
allocation of fishing rights in favor of
another
cooperative
society-the
petitioner claimed discrimination and
violation of fundamental rights-Held,
the petitioner's operational area was
confined to a specific block in Etawah,
as per their registration-It emphasized
the
government's
intention
to
prioritize weaker sections and local
communities in granting fishing rightsThe court ruled that the government's
preferential
framework
for
fishing
rights was constitutional and aligned
with the Directive Principles of State
Policy.(Para 1 to 48)

The writ petition is dismissed. .( E-6)

List of cases cited:

1. Bishambhar Dayal Chandra Mohan Vs St.of
U.P (1982) 1 SCC 39

2. M/s Laxmi Khandsari & ors.. Vs St. of U.P. &
ors..(1981) 2 SCC 600

3. Bijoe Emmanuel Vs St. of Ker.(1986) 3 SCC
615 St.of Bih. Vs Project Uchcha Vidya,
Shikshak Sangh(2006) 2 SCC 545

4. Modern School Vs U.O.I.(2004) 5 SCC 583

5. LIC Vs Manubhai D. Shah (Prof.)(1992) 3 SCC
637

6. Dharam Dutt Vs U.O.I. (2004) 1 SCC 712

7. Sunil Batra Vs Delhi Admn(1978) 4 SCC 494

8. Virajlal Manilal & Co. Vs St. of M.P.(1969) 2
SCC 248

9. Peerless Gen. Fin. & Investt. Co.Ltd. Vs
RBI(1992) 2 SCC 343

10. Lakshman Vs St.of M.P.(1983) 3 SCC 275

11. Mohd. Faruk Vs St.of M.P. (1969)1 SCC 853

12. Saurabh Chaudri Vs U.O.I.(2003) 11 SCC
146
2 All. Matsya Jivi Sahkari Samiti Limited Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
457
13.
Purshottani
Dass
Tandon
Vs
St.of
U.P.(1986) SCC Online All 264

14. St. of U.P. Vs Pradip Tandon(1975) 1 SCC
267

15.
Matsyajivi
Sahkari
Samiti
Ltd.
thru
Adhyaksha/Mukhya Pravartak Vs St.of UP thru
Prin. Secy. Panchayat Raj Deptt Lko &
ors..(2018) 2 ADJ 431

16. Ram Kumar & ors.. Vs The St. of UP &
ors..(2005) 3 UBLBEC 2487

17. Parvej Aktar & ors.. Vs U.O.I. & ors..(1993)
2 SCC 221

18.
Kar.
Power
Corpn.
Ltd
Vs.
K
Thangappan(2006)4 SCC 322

19. BSNL Vs Ghanshyam Dass(2011) 4 SCC 374

20.
St.of
U.K.
Vs
Shiv
Charan
Singh
Bhandari(2013) 12 SCC 179

21. C.Jacob Vs Dir. of Geology & Mining(2008)
10 SCC 115

22. U.O.I. Vs M.K. Sarkar(2010) 2 SCC 59

23. U.O.I.& ors.. Vs Chaman Rana(2018) 5 SCC
798

24. Fertilizer Corpn Kamgar Union (Regd.) Sindri
& ors.. Vs U.O.I. & ors..(1981) 1 SCC 568

25. Directorate of Film Festivals & ors.. V
Gaurav Ashwin Jain & ors..(2007) 4 SCC 737

26. Indian Railway Catering & Tourism Corpn
Ltd. Vs Indian Railway Major & Minor Caterers
Assn & ors..(2011) 12 SCC 792

27. Jacob Puliyel Vs U.O.I. & ors..(2022) SCC
OnLine SC 533

28. Jai A Dehadrai & anr. Vs Govt. of NCT of
Delhi & anr. WP(C)2108 of 2020, CMAP No.
7418 of 2021

 (Delivered by Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra
Tripathi, J.)

1. Heard Sri Arvind Srivastava,
learned counsel for the petitioner; Sri
Devesh Vikram, learned Additional Chief
Standing Counsel assisted by Sri Fuzail
Ahmad Ansari, learned Standing Counsel
for the State respondent nos.1 to 3 and Sri
Kundan
Kumar,
learned
counsel
for
respondent no.4 i.e. Matsya Jivi Sahkari
Samiti Limited, Tehsil Fareha, District
Auraiya.

2. Present writ petition has been
preferred
under Article
226
of
the
Constitution
of
India
inter-alia
with
following reliefs:-

"i. to issue a writ, order or
direction in the nature of certiorari
quashing the
impugned
advertisement
dated 28.07.2023 (Annexure No.06 to this
writ petition) published by the District
Magistrate, Auraiya and all the actions
taken in pursuance to this advertisement by
the respondents.

ii. to issue a writ, order or
direction in the nature of certiorari
quashing the impugned order No.17325/Samiti/2022-23
dated
26.07.2022
(Annexure No.05 to this writ petition)
passed by the Chief Executive Officer,
Fisheries Development Authority, Jalaun at
Orai.."

3. Initially, the present matter was
entertained on 11.08.2023 and on the said
date, learned Additional Chief Standing
Counsel was asked to seek instructions in
the
matter.
Thereafter,
the
detailed
instructions have been placed by learned
Additional Chief Standing Counsel, which
are already on record.

4. The petitioner Society thereafter
moved an amendment application No.3 of
2023
on
18.10.2023
to
quash
the
458 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Government order dated 10.01.2019 and
the order dated 08.09.2023. The petitioner
Society had also moved an impleadment
application No.2 of 2023 to implead
'Matsya Jivi Sahkari Samiti Limited, Tehsil
Fareha, District Auraiya' as respondent
no.4 in whose favour the auction was
settled. As there was no objection to the
aforesaid applications, both the applications
were allowed by this Court vide order dated
17.11.2023 and accordingly, the notice was
also issued to the newly impleaded
respondent no.4.

5. With the consent of the learned
counsel for the parties, this Court proceeds
to decide the present matter at this stage
under the Rules of this Court without
calling for the counter affidavit.

6. The facts in brief for the purpose of
adjudication of the present controversy are
that the petitioner is a Cooperative Society
registered
on
02.08.1986
under
the
provisions of U.P. Cooperative Societies
Act, 1965 (in short, Act, 1965), in the office
of the Director, Fisheries/Registrar, Matsya
Sahkari Samiti Uttar Pradesh, having its
registered office at Gadhakasda, Vikas
Khand Chakarnagar, 81, Maal Godam
Road, District Etawah.

7. It transpires from the record that a
Society had earlier preferred a Writ C
No.31309 of 2018 for direction to the
Revenue Department, State of U.P. to take
a decision in regard to fishing rights in the
rivers, wherein, an interim mandamus was
issued by this Court on 14.09.2018
directing the Department of Revenue,
Government of U.P. to formulate a policy
within two weeks. In response thereof, the
State Government had taken a decision and
issued Government Order on 10.01.2019
laying down the procedure for grant of
fishery rights in the rivers across the State.

8. The present matter relates to
fishery rights in river 'Yamuna', which
flows through various villages falling in
District Jalaun on one side and the villages
falling in District Auraiya on the other side.
In the advertisement dated 28.07.2023
issued in the light of the Government order
dated 10.01.2019, the area of river
'Yamuna' was demarcated as Jal Bhag
No.1, which flows through villages namely
Dimoli, Nandgawan, Kandhesi, Gadha,
Chakarnagar, Basaiya, Madaiya, Bilhati,
Kaleshwar, Khititi, Kariyawali, Machal Ki
Madaiya, Gadhakasda & Kakaraua of
District Etawah and the villages namely
Beejalpur,
Sikharna,
Khairadanda,
Muradganj & Bhartaul of District Auraiya.
The petitioner cooperative society is
claimed
to
be
having
80
members
belonging to fishing community. Out of
these 80 members, 35 members reside in
District Auraiya in the villages through
which the river 'Yamuna' flows and the
remaining 45 members reside in the
villages of District Etawah through which
Jal Bhag No.1 of river 'Yamuna' passes.

9. Sri Arvind Srivastava, learned
counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
petitioner
is
a
registered
Fishermen
Cooperative Society having its area of
operation in the river 'Yamuna'. Earlier all
the members of the petitioner Society were
resident of District Etawah. Due to
bifurcation of the District Etawah into two
districts i.e. Etawah and Auraiya, 35
members of the petitioner Society became
resident of District Auraiya and the
remaining 45 members are residing in
District
Etawah.
In
view
of
the
advertisement, the area of operation is
already
defined
as
Jal
Bhag-1
and
2 All. Matsya Jivi Sahkari Samiti Limited Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
459
therefore, the petitioner Society was
competent to participate in the auction held
on 21.08.2023 but in most arbitrary
manner, the claim of the petitioner was
rejected by the Chief Executive Officer,
Fisheries Development Authority, Jalaun at
Orai vide order dated 26.07.2022.

10. Sri Arvind Srivastava further
submitted that the petitioner Society has
been
registered
with
the
Fishery
Department and recommended for grant of
rights for catching fishes in river 'Yamuna',
which flows through the area of Tehsil
Chakarnagar. Even the members of the
petitioner Society also reside in the various
villages
of
District
Auraiya
namely
Beejalpur,
Sikharna,
Khairadanda,
Muradganj & Bhartaul and their livelihood
is also dependent upon catching fishes. The
petitioner
Society
was
competent
to
participate in view of the advertisement but
on the one hand the respondents had not
given permission to the petitioner Society
to participate in the auction of Jal Bhag
No.1
and
on
the
other
hand,
the
respondents in most arbitrary manner had
settled the auction for the year 2023-24 in
favour of respondent no.4 i.e. 'Matsya Jivi
Sahkari Samiti Limited Fariha, Tehsil
Ajeetmal, District Auraiya' at the minimum
price of Rs.1,56,06,265/- as given in the
impugned advertisement dated 28.07.2023.

11. He submitted that even though
some villages of District Jalaun, Etawah
and Auraiya fall in the demarcated area (Jal
Bhag-1) but the petitioner Society was not
permitted to participate in the auction
proceeding. The Government order dated
10.1.2019 does not permit any such
classification on the basis of geographical
location. The members of the petitioner
Society have a right to earn their livelihood
by exercising fishing rights over the area of
Jal Bhag-1, which passes through the
villages in which the members of the
petitioner Society reside. The act of the
respondents
is
in
violation
of
the
fundamental right of the petitioner Society,
which is enshrined under Article 19 (1) (g)
and 21 of the Constitution of India, which
guarantees the right to livelihood to the
members of the petitioner Society, who
belong to the fishing community to operate
and catch the fishes in river 'Yamuna'.

12. He had also contended that the
Government order dated 10.01.2019 is
merely an executive instruction/policy and
no executive instruction/policy can restrict
or interfere with the fundamental rights of
the petitioner Society unless backed by any
statutory
provision.
The
impugned
Government
order/Circular
dated
10.01.2019 is in teeth of the fundamental
rights of the petitioner Society, which is
guaranteed under Article 19 (1) (g) of the
Constitution of India and therefore, the
same is liable to be set aside. In support of
his submission, learned counsel for the
petitioner placed reliance on the judgment
in Bishambhar Dayal Chandra Mohan v.
State of UP1 in which it was held that the
State or its executive officers cannot
interfere with the rights of others unless
they can point to some specific rule of
law which authorises their acts. The
reliance
was
also
placed
on
the
judgment in M/s Laxmi Khandsari
and ors vs. State of UP and others2 in
which it was held that where there is a
clear violation of Article 19 (1) (g) of
Constitution of India, the State has to
justify
by
acceptable
evidence,
inevitable consequences or sufficient
materials that the restriction, whether
partial or complete, is in public interest
and
contains
the
quality
of
reasonableness.
460 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

13. He further submitted that the law
is well settled that any law, which be made
under clauses (2) to (6) of Article 19 of
Constitution of India to regulate the
exercise of the right to the freedoms
guaranteed by Article 19 (1) (a) to (e) and
(g), must be "a law" having statutory force
and not a mere executive or departmental
instruction. In this regard, he had placed
reliance on the judgments in Bijoe
Emmanuel vs. State of Kerala3; State of
Bihar
vs.
Project
Uchcha
Vidya,
Shikshak Sangh4; Modern School vs.
Union of India5; LIC v. Manubhai D.
Shah (Prof.)6; Dharam Dutt vs. Union of
India7; Sunil Batra v. Delhi Admn.8;
Virajlal Manilal & Co. v. State of M.P.9
and Peerless General Finance and
Investment Co. Ltd. vs. RBI10.

14. It was contended that the
classification made by the Circular dated
10.01.2019 to restrict the residents of the
District Etawah to take part in the auction
of fishing rights in Jal Bhag No.1 of river
Yamuna amounts to excessive restriction.
As per the said Circular, even though the
members of the petitioner society belong to
District Jalaun and District Auraiya, and
they are also residing at the bank of river
Yamuna but on account of arbitrary
circular, they would never be entitled to
participate in the auction proceedings. The
said action is unsustainable. Reliance has
also been placed on the judgments in
Lakshman v. State of M.P.11; Mohd.
Faruk v. State of M.P.12; Saurabh
Chaudri
v.
Union
of
India13;
Purshottani Dass Tandon v. State of
U.P.14; State of U.P. v. Pradip Tandon15.

15. Per contra, Sri Devesh Vikram,
learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel
assisted by Sri Fuzail Ahmad Ansari,
learned Standing Counsel had vehemently
opposed the writ petition. He submitted that
the petitioner Society was registered on
02.08.1986 having its registered office at
Gadhakasda, Vikas Khand Chakarnagar, 81
Maal Godam Raod, District Etawah. Even
in the application, which was moved by the
Secretary and the President of the Society
to the District Magistrate, Jalaun on
04.05.2022, which is already on record, the
petitioner Society itself had accepted that
the area of operation of the petitioner
Society is 'Vikas Khand Chakarnagar,
District Etawah'. He had also placed
reliance on Chapter-II & III of U.P.
Cooperative Societies Rules 1968 (in short,
Rules, 1968), which is framed under the
Act, 1965, which deals with the registration
and the bye-laws respectively. Rule 3 of
Chapter-II of the Rules, 1968 provides for
an application of registration of a Society to
be
made
in
prescribed
form
and
accordingly, Rule 15 of Chapter III
provides for the name and headquarters of
the Society and the area of operation.

16. It had been vehemently contended
that registered bye-laws of the petitioner
Society provides area of operation i.e.
Vikas Khand Chakarnagar and therefore,
the petitioner's own bye laws, which were
framed under the Rules, 1968, do not
permit the petitioner Society to operate
beyond 'Vikas Khand Chakarnagar, District
Etawah'. He had also placed reliance on
Chapter IV of the Rules, 1968, which
provides
the
procedure
regarding
amendment in the bye-laws but admittedly,
the petitioner Society had not made any
amendment in the bye laws regarding the
area of operation and therefore, the entire
claim, which has been set up by the
petitioner Society to operate fishing rights
beyond its area of operation and the
demand of participation in the auction
proceeding, which has been conducted by
2 All. Matsya Jivi Sahkari Samiti Limited Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
461
the
District
Auraiya,
is
totally
misconceived.
The
argument
of
the
petitioner, that at the time of registration of
petitioner Society, the District Auraiya was
not in existence as there was only one
district i.e. Etawah, and therefore, the
petitioner Society may be permitted to
participate in the auction proceeding, is
also misconceived as the District Etawah
was bifurcated in the year 1997 itself and
since then the petitioner Society had not
made any amendment in the bye laws as
per Rule 30 (g) of Chapter IV of the Rules,
1968. The Vikas Khand Chakarnagar
(registered office of the petitioner Society)
was remained in District Etawah and
therefore, even on this account, the
argument of the petitioner's counsel could
not sustain.

17. Sri Fuzail Ahmad Ansari, learned
Standing
Counsel
to
buttress
the
submission advanced by Sri Devesh
Vikram, learned Additional Chief Standing
Counsel, vehemently submitted that even
though at the time of filing the writ petition
the entire pleading had been set up by the
petitioner to challenge the advertisement
dated
28.07.2023,
relying
upon
the
Government order dated 10.01.2019 on the
ground that the petitioner is being treated to
have an area of operation of District
Etawah, whereas the Government order
does not permit any such classification on
the basis of geographical location, which
amounts to discrimination, arbitrariness and
violative of Articles 14, 21 and 19 (1) (g) of
the Constitution of India but later on, as an
afterthought, the petitioner had challenged
the Government order dated 10.01.2019 by
means of amendment application as regard
the preference given therein as Clause (Ga).

18.

Learned
Standing
Counsel
submitted
that
once
the
impugned
advertisement
dated
28.07.2023
was
challenged on the basis of Government
order itself then it was not open to the
petitioner to challenge the Government
order in the same writ petition by means of
an amendment application. In support of
his submission, he has referred paragraphs
3, 10, 14 and 17 of the writ petition. He
submitted that even though, on one hand
the petitioner had taken the benefit of the
said Government order and secured three
more fishing leases in the year 2022-23
apart from their own area of operation,
therefore, at this stage they may not be
permitted to blow hot and cold at the same
time by challenging the Government order
on the ground that they did not fall in the
zone of consideration. He lastly contended
that Clause (Ga) of the Government order
dated 10.01.2019 cannot be challenged at
this belated stage. Moreover, the said
Government order had been issued in
pursuance of the Division Bench order
passed in Writ C No.31309 of 2018. It is
submitted that similar Government order
dated 17.10.1995 has been considered in
Matsyajivi Sahkari Samiti Ltd. through
Adhyaksha/Mukhya Pravartak vs. State
of UP through Principal Secretary,
Panchayat Raj Deptt., Lucknow and
others16 wherein the Division Bench of
this Court had proceeded to dismiss the
writ petition on 21.01.2018.

19. It was submitted that so far as the
argument regarding the violation of Article
14, 19 (1) (g) and 21 of Constitution by the
petitioner is concerned, the same cannot
sustain as the same is already settled by the
Full Bench judgment rendered in Ram
Kumar and ors vs. The State of UP and
ors17, wherein the Full Bench had
discussed the aforesaid issues in paragraphs
nos.25, 26 and 27 of the judgment, which
are reproduced herein below:-
462 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

"25.
From
the
above
pronouncements made by the apex Court, it
is well settled that restrictions imposed to
give effect to the constitutional goals as
laid down in Directive Principles of State
Policy are restrictions with intention to give
certain benefits to weaker section of the
society which are reasonable restrictions
which does not infringe any right of
individual citizen under Article 19(1)(g).
The rights under Article 19(1)(g) are not
absolute rights. As noted above, every
individual has also right of consideration
but according to preference laid down in
the Government orders issued under
Section 126 of the 1950 Act. The
preferences have been provided in the
scheme of the Government with object of
providing livelihood to fishermen and
fishermen cooperative societies. The view
of the Division Bench in Panchoo's case
(supra) and other cases that unless fishing
right is not settled by auction it will violate
Article 19(1)(g) is not correct. The
settlement of fishing right by auction will
necessarily be in favour of a person giving
highest bid. The big contractors and
moneyed persons will steal a march over
poor fishermen and other poor people of
the village who are unable to organise
themselves and the result would be that a
sizeable section of fishermen and other
communities will be deprived of their
livelihood. To stop the settlement from
going into the hands of big contractors
and
middlemen,
the
scheme
was
enforced by the State Government. The
scheme has rational nexus with the
object sought to be achieved and the
persons for whose benefits the scheme
has been framed definitely falls in a
separate
class
having
intelligible
differentia. The settlement of fishing
right in ponds and tanks by public
auction cannot be held to serve the
purpose and object nor the same can
carry forward the goals as laid down in
the Directive Principles of State Policy.
Mere getting more revenue by public
auction is not only object for letting out
the fishing right. The objective as
displayed from the directions of the State
Government under Section 126 of 1950
Act is to provide livelihood to fishermen
and other similar communities and also
to give preference to the cooperative
societies of such fishermen so that they
may organise themselves and carry on
their traditional vocation for the benefit
of large part of weaker section of the
society.

26. We are, thus, of the clear
opinion that the directions issued by the
State Government under Section 126 of
1950 Act read with Rule 115-A of 1952
Rules, as noted above, does not violate
rights of any person under Article 19(1)(g)
and Article 14 of the Constitution of India
and the view expressed by the Division
Bench in Panchoo's case (supra) and Abdul
Gaffar's case (supra) in so far as they hold
the settlement of fishing right only by way
of public auction does not lay down the
correct law. As noted above, the view in the
aforesaid judgments as well as the view
expressed in Ajai Sonkar's case (supra) and
in Gram Panchayat Kanta's case (supra)
that the renewal of lease is not permissible
is absolutely correct and the same view has
found favour with the Full Bench judgment
of this Court in Feru's case (supra).

27.However, it is relevant to note
that the directions issued under Section 126
of 1950 Act itself provides that settlement
of fishing right shall be done with proper
and extensive publicity so that all who are
eligible to participate may be aware of such
proposed settlement and may participate. It
is true that
without information
or
knowledge of all concerned who are
2 All. Matsya Jivi Sahkari Samiti Limited Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
463
eligible to participate the settlement will be
arbitrary. The Division Bench of this Court
in 1992 A.L.J. 482; Gaon Sabha, Tuja, Vs.
The Sub Divisional Officers and others,
had noted the proviso to Rule 115-S and
observed that public auction for settlement
of fishery right is not mandatory. The
Division Bench, however, in the said
judgment has observed that although there
is no requirement to the Sub Divisional
Officer to settle the fishery lease by auction
but the said procedure of auction can be
exercised by the Sub Divisional Officer
when there are more than one person
claiming entitlement for grant of lease.
Following was laid down by the above
Division Bench in paragraph 5:-

"5. ............ While laying down
order of preference for the grant of Patta it
has been provided that if there are more
than one person of one group the Patta shall
be granted by auction in favour of the
highest bidder. The normal rule laid down
by aforesaid Government order is the grant
of Patta by Sub Divisional Officer without
any public auction, unless the case falls
within the last part of Clause-2 which has
provided for public auction, if there are
more than one person of one group. It may,
however, be observed that though there is
no statutory requirement requiring the Sub
Divisional Officer to settle the land by
auction, there is no prohibition either and if
he is of the opinion that in view of the facts
and circumstances of a particular case it
will be expedient to grant the Patta of the
fisheries right by means of public auction,
he may do so. But if he has settled the
fisheries by means of other than the auction
his order cannot be set-aside on the ground
that he has not settled it by holding public
auction."

(Emphasis supplied)

20.

Learned
Standing
Counsel
submitted that although the judgment of the
Full Bench in Ram Kumar's case (supra) is
much prior to the issuance of the
Government order dated 10.01.2019 but the
reasoning given and ratio taken by Hon'ble
Full Bench is fully and squarely applicable
on the case in hand.

21.

We
have
considered
the
submissions advanced by the learned
counsel for the parties and carefully
perused the judgments cited at the bar and
have also perused the record of the case.

22. Before proceeding to consider the rival
submissions, it would be appropriate to reproduce the Government order dated
10.01.2019 as under:-

संख्या- 1/2019/33/एक-2-2019(ररट)/2018

प्रेषक,

सुरेश चन्द्रा,

प्रमुख सनचव,

उ०प्र० शासि।

सेवा में,

आयुक्त एवं सनचव,

राजस्व पररषद,

उ०प्र० लखिऊ।

राजस्व अिुभाग-2

लखिऊः
नदिांकः 10 जिवरी, 2019

नवषयः िनदयों में मत्स्य आखेट हेिु पट्टा/ठेका का अनिकार
नदये जािे के सम्बन्ि में।

महोदय,

उपयुाक्त के सम्बन्ि में मुझे यह कहिे का निदेश हुआ
है नक मा० उच्च न्यायालय, इलाहाबाद में योनजि ररट यानचका
संख्या-31309/2018 "मत्स्य जीवी सहकारी सनमनि नल०
बिाम उ०प्र० राज्य व अन्य" में मा० उच्च न्यायालय द्वारा िनदयों में
मत्स्य आखेट हेिु पट्टा/ठेका का अनिकार नदये जािे के नलए िीनि
बिाये जािे के आदेश पाररि नकए गए हैं। अिः उ०प्र० राज्य के
भौगोनलक क्षेत्रानिकार में पडिे वाली िनदयााँ/बहिी जल िाराओं में
मत्स्य आखेट प्रबन्िि हेिु निम्ि व्यवस्था नििााररि की जािी हैः-
464 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

(क) मत्स्य आखेट क्षेत्रों का नचन्हांकि-

(1) उ०प्र० राज्य के भौगोनलक क्षेत्रानिकार में पडिे वाली
िनदयों में मत्स्य आखेट (नशकारमाही) हेिु सम्बनन्िि जिपद के
नजलानिकारी द्वारा प्रत्येक िहसील में उप नजलानिकारी की
अध्यक्षिा में िहसील स्िरीय मत्स्य आखेट सनमनि का गठि
निम्िवि् नकया जायेगा-

1. उप नजलानिकारी

अध्यक्ष

2. नजलानिकारी द्वारा िानमि खण्ड नवकास अनिकारी

सदस्य

3. अनिशासी अनभयंिा, नसंचाई द्वारा िानमि सहायक
अनभयंिा

 सदस्य

4. अपर मुख्य अनिकारी, नजला पंचायि द्वारा िानमि
अनिकारी

 सदस्य

5. सहायक वि संरक्षक

 सदस्य

6. सहायक निदेशक, मत्स्य/जिपदीय मत्स्य अनिकारी

सदस्य सनचव

(2) उक्त सनमनि द्वारा िहसील में बहिे वाली िनदयों/बहिी
जलिाराओं में सवेक्षण कर मत्स्य आखेट क्षेत्रों का नचन्हांकि नकया
जायेगा। मत्स्य आखेट क्षेिों का नचन्हांकि गारम पंचायि अथवा
आवागमि की सुगमिा अथवा िौका घाट आनद सीमा नवभाजक के
रूप में लेिे हुए नकया जायेगा।

(3) उक्त सनमनि द्वारा िनदयों में मत्स्य आखेट क्षेत्रों का
नचन्हांकि, मत्स्य मात्रा के नििाारण एवं उसका न्यूििम आरनक्षि
मूल्य नििाारण का काया प्रत्येक वषा माह अप्रैल में पूणा नकया जायेगा।

(4) िनदयों में मत्स्य आखेट हेिु प्रनिबनन्िि क्षेत्रों को मत्स्य
आखेट क्षेत्रों के नचन्हांकि से पृथक रखा जायेगा।

(ख) मत्सस्य आखेट क्षेत्रों में मत्सस्य मात्रा का बनधाारण-

(1) विामाि िनदयों/बहिी जलिाराओं में जल प्रवाह की
लम्बाई, चौडाई एवं गहराई को दृनष्टगि रखिे हुए नचनन्हि मत्स्य
आखेट क्षेत्रों में संभानवि मत्स्य उत्पादकिा का नििाारण नकया
जायेगा।

(2) मत्स्य उत्पादकिा के सम्बन्ि में यनद कोई मत्स्य
उत्पादि का आंकडे उपलब्ि हों, िो उसका भी संज्ञाि नलया जाये।

(3) मत्स्य मात्रा के नििाारण के आिार पर मत्स्य आखेट
क्षेत्र का न्यूििम आरनक्षि मूल्य नििााररि नकया जायेगा।

(4) न्यूििम आरनक्षि मूल्य का नििाारण (1) क (1), में
गनठि सनमनि द्वारा नकया जायेगा नजसका अिुमोद नजलानिकारी द्वारा
नकया जायेगा।

(ग) मत्सस्य आखेट हेतु मत्सस्य जीवी सहकारी सबमबतयों
की पात्रता का वरीयताक्रम बनम्नवत होगा-

(क) संबंबधत ग्राम में बनवास करने वाले मछुआ
समुदाय के व्यबियों की सहकारी सबमबतयां जो उ०प्र०
सहकारी सबमबत अबधबनयम, 1965 के अन्तगात रबजस्रीकृत
हों और मत्सस्य पालन बविाग, उ०प्र० द्वारा मान्यता प्राप्त हो।

(ख) संबंबधत न्याय पंचायत क्षेत्र में बनवास करने वाले
मछुआ समुदाय के व्यबियों की सहकारी सबमबतयां, जो ऊपर
की िांबत पंजीकृत और मान्यता प्राप्त हो,

(ग) संबंबधत बवकास खण्ड में बनवास करने वाले
मछुआ समुदाय की सहकारी सबमबतयां जो ऊपर की िांबत
पंजीकृत और मान्यता प्राप्त हो।

(घ) संबंबधत जनपद में बनवास करने वाले मछुआ
समुदाय की सहकारी सबमबतयां जो ऊपर की िांबत पंजीकृत
और मान्यता प्राप्त हो।

(ड़) उ०प्र० राज्य में बनवास करने वाले मछुआ समुदाय
की सहकारी सबमबतयां जो ऊपर की िांबत पंजीकृत और
मान्यता प्राप्त हो।

(च) अनुसूबचत जाबत अथवा अनुसूबचत जनजाबत के
व्यबियों की सहकारी सबमबतयां जो ऊपर की िांबत पंजीकृत
और मान्यता प्राप्त हो।

(छ) अन्य सहकारी सबमबतयां जो ऊपर की िांबत
पंजीकृत और मान्यता प्राप्त हो।

स्पष्टीकरण

1. नचनन्हि मत्स्य आखेट क्षेत्र नजस ग्राम/ग्रामों में पडिा है
उस ग्राम/ग्रामों की ग्राम पंचायि/पंचायिों में पडिे वाली मत्स्य जीवी
सहकारी सनमनियां पात्र मािी जायेगी।

2. यनद नचनन्हि मत्स्य आखेट क्षेत्र में केवल एक मत्स्य
जीवी सहकारी सनमनि पात्र है िो न्यूििम आरनक्षि मूल्य पर पट्टा
नकया जायेगा। यनद पात्रिा सूची में एक से अनिक मत्स्य जीवी
सहकारी सनमनियां हैं िो मौके पर िीलामी करायी जायेगी। नजसमें
केवल पात्रिा सूची में उनल्लनखि सनमनियों के अनिकृि प्रनिनिनि
ही प्रनिभाग कर सकेंगे।

3. यबद बचबन्हत मत्सस्य आखेट क्षेत्र वाली नदी दो
बजलों की सीमाओं से होकर पूरब पबिम बहती है तो उत्तर में
पड़ने वाले जनपद के बजलाबधकारी द्वारा प्रथम वषा में
पट्टा/नीलामी की जायेगी और दबक्षण में पड़ने वाले
बजलाबधकारी द्वारा दूसरे वषा पट्टा/नीलामी की जायेगी। इसी
प्रकार यबद नदी उत्तर दबक्षण में बहती है तो पूरब में पड़ने वाले
जनपद के बजलाबधकारी द्वारा प्रथम वषा में पट्टा/बनलामी की
जायेगी और पबिम में पड़ने वाले बजलाबधकारी द्वारा दूसरे वषा
2 All. Matsya Jivi Sahkari Samiti Limited Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
465
पट्टा/नीलामी की जायेगी। यह व्यवस्था क्रमानुसार आगे की
अवबध के बलये िी जारी रहेगी।

2. यनद नचनन्हि मत्स्य आखेट क्षेत्र हेिु पट्टा आवंटि के
नलये केवल एक मत्स्य जीवी सहकारी सनमनि पात्र है, िो पट्टा
न्यूििम आरनक्षि मूल्य पर या राज्य सरकार द्वारा समय-समय पर
नियि भाटक की ििरानश पर नदया जायेगा।

3. संबंनिि नजलानिकारी द्वारा िानमि अपर, नजलानिकारी
या उप नजलानिकारी पट्टी आवंटि/िीलाम अनिकारी होगा।

4. नचनन्हि मत्स्य आखेट क्षेत्रों में पट्टा/िीलामी सनमनि द्वारा
माह मई व जूि के अन्ि िक कर दी जायेगी।

5. पट्टा आवंटि/िीलामी अनिकारी द्वारा नचनन्हि मत्स्य
आखेट क्षेत्रों के पट्टा आवंटि/िीलामी की सूचिा जिपद में पयााप्त
प्रचार-प्रसार वाले कम से कम दो नहन्दी समाचार पत्रों में प्रकानशि
करायी जायेगी। मत्स्याखेट के पट्टा/िीलामी के आवेदि हेिु कम से
कम 21 नदि (3 सप्ताह) का समय नदया जायेगा।

6. मत्स्य आखेट सनमनि बोली में उच्चिम ििरानश वाली
मत्स्य जीवी सहकारी सनमनि से बोली की 25 प्रनिशि ििरानश
ित्काल जमा करायेगी। अवशेष ििरानश एक सप्ताह में जमा करिा
अनिवाया होगा।

7. उच्चिम बोली की ििरानश जमा कर दी गयी हो, िो
पात्रिा सूची, िीलामी प्रपत्र और बोली की ििरानश को जमा करिे
संबंिी नववरण सनहि िहसील स्िरीय मत्स्य आखेट सनमनि अपिी
आख्या सम्बनन्िि नजलानिकारी को अग्रसाररि करेगी।

8. यनद नजलानिकारी का समािाि हो जािा है नक मत्स्य
आखेट क्षेत्र को आवंनटि करिे का निणाय नियमों के उपबन्दों के
अिुसार नकया गया है िो नजलानिकारी पट्टा/िीलामी की स्वीकृनि
नबन्दु संख्या-12 में नििााररि शिों के अिीि प्रदाि कर देंगे।

9. पट्टा/िीलामी से प्राप्त ििरानश की 25 प्रनिशि ििरानश
आिुपानिक रूप से संबंनिि ग्राम पंचायिों को 25 प्रनिशि ििरानश
नजला पंचायि को और 50 प्रनिशि ििरानश नजलानिकारी द्वारा
स्थानपि नकये जािे वाले मत्स्य नवकास निनि के बैंक खािे में जमा
की जायेगी नजसका उपयोग नजलानिकारी के निदेशािुसार मत्स्य
नवकास कायािमों में व्यय नकया जा सकेगा।

10. मत्सस्य आखेट पट्टा/नीलामी से क्षुब्ध व्यबि
पट्टा/नीलामी की स्वीकृबत की बतबथ से 30 बदन के अन्दर
सम्बबन्धत मण्डलायुि को अपील कर सकता है। मण्डलायुि
के आदेश के बवरूद्ध 30 बदन के अन्दर राजस्व पररषद में
बनगरानी योबजत की जा सकती है और बनगरानी में पाररत
आदेश अबन्तम आदेश होगा।

(घ) मत्स्य आखेट हेिु शिे

(1) पट्टािारक/िीलामी प्राप्तकिाा द्वारा प्रत्येक वषा 01 जूि
से 31 अगस्ि िक िनदयों में मत्स्य आखेट प्रनिबनन्िि रखा
जायेगा।

(2) पट्टािारक/िीलामी प्राप्तकिाा के द्वारा बहिी हुयी
िदी/जलिारा के प्रवाह को रोकिे का प्रयास िहीं नकया जायेगा और
ि ही िदी/जलिारा में बाडे (Fixed Engine) लगाये जायेंगे।

(3) मछुआरों के आनथाक एवं सामानजक उत्थाि हेिु िनदयों
में बढ़िे हुए प्रदूषण एवं घटिी हुई मत्स्य सम्पदा के दृनष्टगि
पट्टािारक/िीलामी प्राप्तकिाा द्वारा मत्स्य नवभाग के अनिकाररयों की
देखरेख में 2000 मत्स्य अंगुनलका (70 से 100
नम०मी०आकार) प्रनि नकमी० की दर से भारिीय मेजर कापा मत्स्य
प्रजानियों को िनदयों में पुिस्थाानपि करिे के नलए ररवर रैनन्चंग
कराया जायेगा।

(4) पट्टािारक/िीलामी प्राप्तकिाा िदी में कोई ऐसा नवषैला
अथवा नवस्फोटक पदाथा उपयोग में िहीं लायेगा नजससे जल प्रदूषण
एवं जलीय जीव जन्िुओं की मृत्यु होिे की सम्भाविा हो।

(5) पट्टािारक/िीलामी प्राप्तकिाा को िदी में कछुआ,
घनडयाल, गैन्जेनटक डॉलनफि, मगर एवं अन्य प्रनिबनन्िि जलीय
वन्य जीवों को पकडिे का अनिकार िहीं होगा।

(6) मत्स्य आखेट हेिु प्रनिबनन्िि श्रेणी के जाल का प्रयोग
िहीं नकया जायेगा।

(7) पट्टािारक/िीलामी प्राप्तकिाा को िदी के उस भाग में जो
उसिे िीलाम में नलया है प्रनिबनन्िि अवनि में जीरा एकत्र करिे का
कोई अनिकार िहीं होगा।

(8) मत्स्य नवभाग की पररनस्थि नवशेष में जबनक मछली के
सम्पूणा नविाश का भय उत्पन्ि हो जावे िो नशकारमाही बन्द करिे
अथवा नियंनत्रि करिे का पूणा अनिकार होगा।

(9) मत्स्य नवभाग के कमाचाररयों/अनिकाररयों को िदी में
अिुसंिाि काया हेिु प्रायोनगक नशकारमाही करिे में
पट्टािाकर/िीलामी प्राप्तकिाा को कोई आपनत्त िहीं होगी।

(10) पट्टािारक/िीलामी प्राप्तकिाा को समय पर राज्य
सरकार द्वारा मत्स्य पालि व मत्स्य आखेट हेिु जारी आदेशों का
पालि करिा अनिवाया होगा।

(11) यनद पट्टा आवंटि/िीलामी की अवनि में पट्टािारक
आवंटि/िीलामी की शिों का उल्लंघि करिा है, िो नजलानिकारी
आवंटी/िीलामी प्राप्तकिाा को कारण बिाओ िोनटस जारी करके
आवंटि/िीलामी निरस्ि कर सकेगा और पुिः िीलामी की कायावाही
की जायेगी।

(12) नकसी मामले में यनद मा० उच्चिम न्यायालय, मा०
उच्च न्यायालय, राष्रीय हररि प्रानिकरण (एि०जी०टी०) या अन्य
कोई न्यायालय का आदेश है िो वह प्रभारी रहेगा।
466 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

भवदीय,
सुरेश चन्द्रा
प्रमुख सनचव"

23. Under the relevant Government
Order dated 10.01.2019, which holds the
field, the concerned District Magistrate is
required to constitute Tehsil Level Fishing
Hunting
Committees
under
the
chairmanship of the Sub Divisional Officer.
Paragraph-Ga of the Government Order
dated 10.01.2019 provides preference of
eligible Matya Jivi Sahkari Samities,
wherein the first preference is to be given
to the Sahkari Samiti registered under the
Act, 1965, which has been formed by the
persons of fishing community of the
concerned village. The second and third
preferences are to be given to the registered
Societies of persons of fishing community
of concerned Nyay Panchayat Kshetra and
concerned
Development
Block
respectively. The fourth preference is to be
given to the registered Societies of the
persons of fishing community of the
concerned District. The fifth preference is
to be given to the registered Societies of the
persons of fishing community, who are
resident of the State of Uttar Pradesh and
the sixth preference is to be given to the
registered Societies of persons belonging to
the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe.

24.

The
paragraph-3
of
the
explanation appended to Para-Ga of the
aforesaid Government order provides that if
the river of earmarked fishing hunting area
is flowing between the boundaries of two
districts towards east-west then the District
Magistrate of North district shall conduct
the auction/lease for the first years and the
District Magistrate of South district shall
conduct the auction of the second year. In
the same manner, if the river flows towards
North-South, then the District Magistrate of
the
East
district
shall
conduct
the
auction/lease for the first year and the
District Magistrate of the West district shall
conduct the auction/lease for the second
year. This arrangement will continue in
future. In accordance with provisions
contained in Government order dated
10.01.2019 the District Magistrate, Auraiya
has published the impugned advertisement
for District Auraiya and District Jalaun
(jointly) inviting applications for according
fishery rights in respect of the rivers/ponds
mentioned in the advertisement at serial
nos.1 to 17 wherein the concerned part of
river 'Yamuna' has been demarcated as Jal
Bhag No.1.

25. The petitioner is a Society
registered under the Act, 1965 since
02.08.1986, having its registered office at
Gadhakasda, Vikas Khand Chakarngar, 81
Maal Godam Road, District Etawah and is
engaged in the occupation of fisheries.
Mohd. Idrees is the Secretary of the Society
and Shri Amar Singh is its President. The
area of operation of the petitioner Society is
'Vikas Khand Chakarnagar', which is also
admitted by the petitioner in its application
dated 04.05.2022 moved before the District
Magistrate, District Jalaun at Orai, which is
appended as Annexure No.4 to the writ
petition, wherein it has been accepted that
the area of operation of the petitioner
Society
is
'Vikas
Khand
Chakarnagar'. It is also apparent from
the registration certificate of the
petitioner Society that the petitioner
Society
is
registered
on
the
application submitted under Section 6
of the Act, 1965 and the said Society
is registered in compliance of the said
Act, Rules made thereunder and the
general or special orders issued and
the bye-laws of the said Society at
Etawah District at Serial No.158.
2 All. Matsya Jivi Sahkari Samiti Limited Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
467

26. The Government order dated
10.01.2019 issued in pursuance of the
directions of this Court in Writ C No.31309
of 2018, does not violate rights of any
person under Article 19 (1) (g) and Article
14 of the Constitution of India. The
directions issued by the State Government
itself provide that settlement of fishing
right shall be done with proper and
extensive publicity so that all persons, who
are eligible to participate, may be aware of
such
proposed
settlement
and
may
participate in the auction. The Government
order itself contemplates "wide publicity"
and the Tehsil Level Committee is
constituted under the chairmanship of the
Sub Divisional Officer. The Government
order provides the procedure for auction of
the fishing rights over the rivers. In
pursuance of the aforesaid Government
order, the auction was held for Jal Bhag
No.1 of river Yamuna on 21.08.2023,
wherein the bid of the respondent no.4 on
the minimum price of Rs.1,56,06,265/- was
accepted.

27. The petitioner has 80 members
belonging to fishing community. After
bifurcation of District Etawah, 35 members
of the petitioner society became resident of
District Auraiya through which the Jal
Bhag-1 of river 'Yamuna' is flowing and
remaining 45 members of the Society
reside in the villages of District Etawah
through which Jal Bhag No.1 of river
'Yamuna' flows. Admittedly, the area of
operation of the petitioner Society is Vikas
Khand
Chakarnagar,
District
Etawah,
which is clearly reflected from the
application
of
the
petitioner
dated
04.05.2022 moved before the District
Magistrate, District Jalaun at Orai, wherein
it has been accepted that the area of
operation of the petitioner Society is 'Vikas
Khand Chakarnagar'. Rule 15 of Chapter
III of the Rules, 1968 provides for the name
and headquarters of the Society and the
area of operation. Clause-4 of the registered
bye laws of the petitioner Society deals
with the area of operation and it mentions
the area of operation of the Society as
'whole Vikas Khand Chakarnagar', which
consists of 64 village panchayats. ChapterVI of the Rules, 1968 deals with the
procedure regarding amendment of the byelaws.