IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL MISHRA

th

ON THE 9 OF JANUARY, 2026 WRIT PETITION No. 173 of 2026 MACHLI PALAN SAHKARI SANSTHA MYDT. ISLAAM NAGAR THROUGH PRESIDENT SHRI MUNNA LAL Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Anil Lala - Advocate for the petitioner.

Shri H.S.Ruprah - Additional Advocate General with Shri Swapnil Ganguly - Deputy Advocate General and Shri A.S.Baghel - Government Advocate, Shri Aakash Malpani - Panel Lawyer for the respondents/State.

ORDER This petition is filed challenging the orders dated 24.12.2025 and

01.01.2026 passed by the respondents No.3 and 4 respectively.

On the request made by the learned Additional Advocate General to enable him to seek instructions in the matter, it was kept for consideration on 07.01.2026, 08.01.2026 and thereafter was kept for consideration on

09.01.2026.

Today when the matter is listed learned Additional Advocate General prayed for a short time to enable him to file response to the petition. However, the petitioner has prayed for grant of interim relief in the matter, pointing out the fact that the legal members of the societies have been restrained from carrying out fishing activities.

This Court has specifically asked the respondents to explain that how the legal members of the societies can be restrained from carrying out fishing activities, on which, he submits that there is a law and order situation being created by the members of various societies claiming their fishing rights; therefore, the impugned order dated 01.01.2026 has been passed restraining all from carrying out the fishing activities. He has also drawn attention of this Court to order dated 24.12.2025 wherein, in pursuance to the letter issued by the Human Rights Commission, the action has been taken against the authorities.

A specific query was made that how an action can be taken based upon the letter written by the Human Rights Commission once there is a statutory remedy provided under the Act itself. He was further directed to explain that how the legal members of the societies can be restrained from carrying out the fishing activities who has invested the huge amount. On this issue, he prayed for taking up the matter in the pass over round to enable him to seek instructions.

The matter was kept in the pass over round and when the matter was taken up in the second round, on instructions, it is submitted by the learned Additional Advocate General as well as learned Deputy Advocate General that the respondents have proposed to form a Committee for examining the cases of the members of the societies individually and thereafter they will pass a fresh order. Once a decision is taken by the authorities for examining the cases individually, the impugned orders may be quashed and liberty be extended to the State Government to examine the cases of the members of the societies individually, in accordance with law.

It is further queried that whether the order dated 24.12.2025 based upon the letters of the Human Rights Commission is sustainable. He fairly submits that the order dated 24.12.2025 as well as 01.01.2026 may be quashed.

At this stage, counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that in view of the undertaking given by the State counsel, the petitioners who are legal members be permitted to carry out the fishing activities.

Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

In view of the specific undertaking given by the learned Additional Advocate General and learned Deputy Advocate General, the impugned orders dated 24.12.2025 and 01.01.2026 are hereby quashed. The respondents may take appropriate action, in accordance with law with respect to examining the cases of the members of the societies individually.

As far as directions to the respondents to permit the petitioner to carry out fishing activities is concerned, once the impugned orders dated 24.12.2025 and 01.01.2026 are already quashed, there is no legal impedi