The Madhya Pradesh High Court on October 8 issued notice to the State government and other respondents on a public interest litigation seeking enforcement of a prohibition on planting Conocarpus trees, a non-native species, in public places across the State. A Division Bench of Justice Subodh Abhyankar and Justice Jai Kumar Pillai directed that notice be served on the respondents by speed post with due acknowledgement within seven working days, returnable within four weeks, and listed the matter after four weeks.

The order was made in WP No. 38674 of 2026, heard at the Indore Bench of the High Court. The petition was filed by advocate Gopal Joshi, who appeared in person, and names the Chief Secretary, Government of Madhya Pradesh, among the respondents. The court did not pass any interim order at this stage. Its direction was limited to issuing notice, a procedural step that formally brings the respondents into the proceedings.

A ban that remains on paper?

The petitioner’s case is that the State has continued to plant Conocarpus despite its own directive to stop. The Urban Administration and Development Department issued a circular on January 9, 2026, instructing Urban Local Bodies to avoid plantation of the species. The petition also relies on a report of the Central Empowered Committee, which examined the environmental and ecological impact of the species and recommended that further plantation be stopped and suitable native species promoted.

The petition draws additional support from the Union Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change. In a reply to a Lok Sabha Unstarred Question, the Ministry stated that all States and Union Territories were advised to stop plantation of the species with immediate effect. The petitioner argues that the existence of a State circular and a central advisory made the continued planting of Conocarpus in public places all the more indefensible.

Despite these official instructions, the petition alleges, Conocarpus trees were still being planted in public places. The petition makes the point in these words:

"A policy intended to protect the environment cannot remain confined to official records while the practice sought to be discontinued continues in public places."

The health argument is an equally important part of the plea. The petitioner submits that pollen from the species may cause or aggravate allergic reactions and respiratory discomfort in susceptible persons and may contribute to other respiratory conditions among residents. For urban residents living near the planted trees, the choice of species is therefore not only an ecological question but also a public health one.

Before moving the High Court, the petitioner sent a detailed representation to the concerned authorities on July 23, 2026. According to the petition, no effective action was taken on that representation. The PIL asks the court to direct the respondents to strictly implement the policy concerning the prohibition on plantation of Conocarpus within the State and to ensure that suitable native species are promoted in its place.

The order and the next date

At the preliminary hearing, the Division Bench issued notice in these terms:

"Issue notice to the respondents on payment of process fee within seven working days by speed post with due acknowledgement , returnable within four weeks. List after four weeks."

Advocate Pradyumna Kibe appeared for the State. The High Court has not sought affidavits or called for a reply on the merits at this stage. The notice will allow the State and the other respondents to place on record their stand on the circular and on the allegation that plantation has continued despite it. The case is now listed for further hearing on November 23.

Why the notice matters

The case is an example of public interest litigation being used to enforce an environmental policy that has not been implemented on the ground. Such petitions are brought under the High Court’s constitutional writ jurisdiction, which permits courts to direct public authorities to discharge duties imposed by law or executive policy. The issuance of notice does not mean the court has accepted every allegation in the petition; it means the respondents must appear and answer.

If the petitioner ultimately succeeds, Urban Local Bodies in Madhya Pradesh would be required to stop further planting of Conocarpus and to use suitable native species in civic plantation drives. Such an outcome would also clarify the value of a departmental circular and a Union government advisory when public authorities continue a contrary practice. For now, the immediate consequence is procedural: the respondents must receive notice and the State must prepare its response.

The next hearing on November 23 will show whether the State acknowledges a gap between its circular and its practice, and what steps, if any, it proposes to take. Until then, the controversy over Conocarpus plantation remains before the High Court, with the policy’s enforcement, its health rationale, and its environmental impact all at stake.