Matsyajivi Sahkari Samiti Limited And Another vs State Of U.P. And 3 Other

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - C No. - 30242 of 2026
Matsyajivi Sahkari Samiti Limited and another
…..Petitioner(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and 3 Other
…..Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Arvind Srivastava, Shubham
Srivastava, Vijay Bahadur
Vishwakarma
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C.
Reserved on 30.09.2026
Delivered on 28.10.2026
Court No. - 1
HON'BLE AJIT KUMAR, J.
HON'BLE GARIMA PRASHAD, J.

(Per: Garima Prashad, J.)
1. Heard Sri Arvind Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioners and
the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.
2. This Writ Petition concerns the manner in which fishing rights in a
river forming the boundary between two districts are to be settled under
the Government Order dated 10.01.2019. The question is whether, in the
year assigned to one bank-side district for conducting the settlement, a
fishermen cooperative society situated on the opposite bank is entitled to

2
WRIC No. - 30242 of 2026
participate in the auction proceedings, and, if so, the manner in which
the preference under clause ( ) is to be applied.
ग
3. Petitioner no. 1 is a fishermen cooperative society registered in
District Auraiya. Its members are stated to reside in villages Badi Goonj,
Jhuhikha and Barbatpur, situated on the Auraiya bank of Part I of river
Yamuna. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Madhogarh, District Jalaun,
issued an advertisement dated 20.07.2026 for settlement of fishing rights
over the stretch from Kanjausa to Himmatpur. The auction was fixed for
03.08.2026.
4. Before the advertisement was issued, the petitioners had submitted
applications dated 14.05.2026 seeking permission to participate in the
settlement for the year 2026-27. The Assistant Director of Fisheries,
Jalaun, responded by the communication dated 15.07.2026. It states that,
in the first stage, the eligible fishermen cooperative societies of District
Jalaun falling within the prescribed order of priority would be
considered. A society of the adjoining District Auraiya could be
considered only if no eligible society of District Jalaun applied or
qualified.
5. The petitioners seek quashing of that communication and a mandamus
requiring the respondents to consider their bid along with the bids of
societies whose members reside on the Jalaun bank. Their case is that
Explanation 3 to clause ( ) merely identifies the District Magistrate who
ग
will conduct the auction in a particular year. It does not divide eligibility
bank-wise or take away the right of otherwise eligible societies from
either district to participate.
6. Sri Arvind Srivastava submits that the words “concerned village” refer
to the village or villages adjoining the identified river stretch,

3
WRIC No. - 30242 of 2026
irrespective of the bank on which they lie. He submits that simultaneous
participation would provide a fair opportunity to fishermen societies of
both districts and protect the livelihood of their members. The rotational
arrangement concerning the District Magistrate, according to him,
cannot be converted into a restriction which the Government Order does
not contain.
7. Learned Standing Counsel relies upon the written instructions initially
received from the Assistant Director of Fisheries, Jalaun. According to
those instructions, the societies of the district whose authority conducts
the auction are to be considered first in the prescribed order of priority,
and a society situated in the district on the opposite bank may be
considered only if the auction remains unsuccessful at that stage.
8. The Court thereafter required the Director, Fisheries, to place the
considered stand of the State on affidavit. Paragraphs 10 to 13 of the
personal affidavit take a different view of Explanation 3. The Director
states that the rotation is confined to the authority which conducts the
auction proceedings. Paragraph 11 specifically states that all eligible
societies are entitled to participate “simultaneously and on equal terms”.
It further states that the actual allotment or grant of lease must be made
strictly in accordance with the order of priority prescribed under clause
( ), described as clause (C) in the affidavit.
ग
9. The two stands taken on behalf of the State reveal that the State itself
is uncertain about the manner in which clause ( ) is to operate. They
ग
cannot be reconciled. The earlier instructions treat the district conducting
the auction as the first and exclusive field of consideration and defer the
societies of the other district until that field is exhausted. The personal
affidavit of the Director, on the other hand, permits eligible societies of

4
WRIC No. - 30242 of 2026
both districts to participate simultaneously, while preserving the
prescribed priority at the stage of allotment. Neither position follows
expressly from the text of the Government Order. 
Clause ( ) speaks of the “concerned village”, the “concerned Nyaya
ग
Panchayat”, the “concerned Development Block” and the “concerned
district”. It does not explain whether, where a river forms the boundary
between two districts, these expressions extend to the villages and
corresponding administrative areas on both banks; nor does it expressly
provide for simultaneous participation or for deferred consideration of
societies situated on the opposite bank. The uncertainty is therefore not
merely a difference of opinion between two officers. It concerns the
manner in which the State itself understands and proposes to administer
the Government Order. The issue must consequently be determined from
its language, structure and object, in the light of the binding judgments
explaining the purpose of the preference framework.
10. The genesis of the Government Order is material. In Matsya Jivi
Sahkari Samiti Limited v. State of U.P. and 2 Others, Writ-C No. 26978
of 2023, Neutral Citation No. 2024:AHC:6539-DB, decided on
12.01.2024, the Division Bench records that Writ-C No. 31309 of 2018
had sought a direction to the Revenue Department to take a decision
regarding fishing rights in rivers. An interim mandamus dated
14.09.2018 required the State Government to formulate a policy. The
preamble of the Government Order dated 10.01.2019 also records that it
was issued pursuant to the order passed in that Writ Petition.
11. The Government Order identifies fishing areas, provides for
assessment of the likely fish yield and reserve price, prescribes the
preference among eligible fishermen cooperative societies, provides the

5
WRIC No. - 30242 of 2026
method of settlement, and regulates fishing activity. Clause ( ), which
ग
contains the order of priority, reads as follows:
 “ ( )
ग मत्स्यआखेटहेतुमत्स्यजीवीसहकारीसमितियोंकीपात्रताकावरीयताक्रम
-
निम्नवतहोगा
( )
क संबंधितग्राममेंनिवासकरनेवालेमछुआसमुदायकेव्यक्ति योंकीसहकारी
, 1965
समितियांजो उ०प्र०सहकारी समिति अधिनियम केअन्तर्गत
,
रजिस्ट्रीकृतहोंऔरमत्स्यपालनविभाग उ०प्र०द्वारामान्यताप्राप्तहो।
( )
ख संबंधितन्यायपंचायतक्षेत्रमेंनिवासकरनेवालेमछुआसमुदायकेव्यक्ति यों
, ,
कीसहकारीसमितियां जोऊपरकीभांतिपंजीकृतऔरमान्यताप्राप्तहो
( )
ग संबंधितविकासखण्डमेंनिवासकरनेवालेमछुआसमुदायकीसहकारी

समितियांजोऊपरकीभांतिपंजीकृतऔरमान्यताप्राप्तहो।
( )
घ संबंधितजनपदमेंनिवासकरनेवालेमछुआसमुदायकीसहकारीसमितियां

जोऊपरकीभांतिपंजीकृतऔरमान्यताप्राप्तहो।
( )
ड़ उ०प्र०राज्यमेंनिवासकरनेवालेमछुआसमुदायकीसहकारीसमितियांजो

ऊपरकीभांतिपंजीकृतऔरमान्यताप्राप्तहो।
( )
च अनुसूचितजाति अथवा अनुसूचितजनजाति केव्यक्ति योंकी सहकारी

समितियांजोऊपरकीभांतिपंजीकृतऔरमान्यताप्राप्तहो।
( ) ”
छ अन्यसहकारीसमितियांजोऊपरकीभांतिपंजीकृतऔरमान्यताप्राप्तहो।
Translated into English, clause ( ) provides:
ग
“ (C) The order of priority for eligibility of fishermen cooperative
societies for fishing rights shall be as follows:
(a) cooperative societies of persons belonging to the fishing
community and residing in the concerned village, which are
registered under the Uttar Pradesh Cooperative Societies
Act, 1965 and recognised by the Fisheries Department,
Uttar Pradesh;
(b) cooperative societies of persons belonging to the fishing
community and residing within the concerned Nyaya
Panchayat area, which are registered and recognised in the
manner stated above;
(c) cooperative societies of persons belonging to the fishing
community and residing within the concerned Development
Block, which are registered and recognised in the manner
stated above;
(d) cooperative societies of persons belonging to the fishing
community and residing within the concerned district,

6
WRIC No. - 30242 of 2026
which are registered and recognised in the manner stated
above;
(e) cooperative societies of persons belonging to the fishing
community and residing within the State of Uttar Pradesh,
which are registered and recognised in the manner stated
above;
(f) cooperative societies of persons belonging to the
Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes, which are registered
and recognised in the manner stated above; and
(g) other cooperative societies which are registered and
recognised in the manner stated above.”
14. The three Explanations appended to clause ( ) are part of the same
ग
arrangement. Explanations 1 and 2 identify the eligible societies and the
mode of settlement. They provide:
“ 1. / /
चिन्हितमत्स्यआखेटक्षेत्रजिसग्राम ग्रामोंमेंपड़ताहैउसग्राम ग्रामोंकीग्राम
/
पंचायत पंचायतोंमेंपड़नेवालीमत्स्यजीवीसहकारीसमितियांपात्रमानीजायेगी।
2.
यदिचिन्हितमत्स्यआखेटक्षेत्रमेंकेवलएकमत्स्यजीवीसहकारीसमिति पात्र

हैतोन्यूनतमआरक्षितमूल्यपरपट्टाकियाजायेगा।यदि पात्रतासूचीमेंएकसे

अधिकमत्स्यजीवीसहकारीसमितियांहैंतोमौकेपरनीलामीकरायीजायेगी।

जिसमेंकेवलपात्रतासूचीमेंउल्लि खितसमितियोंकेअधिकृतप्रतिनिधि ही
”
प्रतिभागकरसकेंगे।
Their English translation is:
“ 1. The fishermen cooperative societies falling within the Gram
Panchayat or Gram Panchayats of the village or villages in which
the identified fishing area lies shall be treated as eligible.
2. Where only one fishermen cooperative society is eligible for the
identified fishing area, the lease shall be granted at the minimum
reserve price. Where more than one fishermen cooperative society
is included in the eligibility list, an auction shall be held at the

7
WRIC No. - 30242 of 2026
site, in which only the authorised representatives of the societies
mentioned in the eligibility list may participate.”
16. Explanation 3, which directly concerns a river forming the boundary
of two districts, reads:
“
3.
यदिचिन्हितमत्स्यआखेटक्षेत्रवालीनदीदोजिलोंकीसीमाओंसेहोकरपूरबपश्चिम

बहतीहैतोउत्तरमेंपड़नेवालेजनपदकेजिलाधिकारीद्वाराप्रथमवर्षमें
/
पट्टा नीलामीकीजायेगीऔरदक्षिणमेंपड़नेवालेजिलाधिकारीद्वारादूसरेवर्ष
/
पट्टा नीलामीकीजायेगी।इसीप्रकारयदिनदीउत्तरदक्षिणमेंबहतीहैतोपूरबमें
/
पड़नेवालेजनपदकेजिलाधिकारीद्वाराप्रथमवर्षमेंपट्टा नीलामीकीजायेगीऔर
/
पश्चिममेंपड़नेवालेजिलाधिकारीद्वारादूसरेवर्षपट्टा नीलामीकीजायेगी।यह
”
व्यवस्थाक्रमानुसारआगेकीअवधि केलियेभीजारीरहेगी।
Its English translation is:
“ 3. Where the river containing the identified fishing area flows east-west
along the boundaries of two districts, the lease or auction shall be
conducted in the first year by the District Magistrate of the district
situated to the north and in the second year by the District
Magistrate of the district situated to the south. Similarly, where the
river flows north-south, the lease or auction shall be conducted in
the first year by the District Magistrate of the district situated to
the east and in the second year by the District Magistrate of the
district situated to the west. This arrangement shall continue by
rotation for the succeeding periods.”
18. The Government Order deals with four issues:
(i) Explanation 1: Who is eligible?
(ii) Explanation 2: How will the settlement be made?

8
WRIC No. - 30242 of 2026
(iii) Explanation 3: Which District Magistrate will conduct it?
(iv) Clause ( ): In what order will the eligible societies receive
ग
preference?
19. Explanation 3 does not state that the societies situated in the district
on the opposite bank become ineligible during the year in which the
other district conducts the settlement. It does not state that their
consideration must await the failure of an auction confined to the
societies of the conducting district. The words used are that the lease or
auction shall be conducted by one District Magistrate in the first year
and by the other in the second year. The subject of the rotation is the
conducting authority, not the body of eligible societies.
20. A river forming the boundary between two districts is one flowing
water body. The identified fishing stretch cannot conveniently be
subjected to two parallel settlements by two district authorities.
Explanation 3 therefore assigns administrative responsibility to one
District Magistrate at a time and alternates that responsibility. That
arrangement avoids overlapping proceedings. It does not, by its own
force, create alternate years of exclusive eligibility for fishermen
residing on the two banks.
21. The precedential background confirms this reading. In Matsyajivi
Sahkari Samiti Ltd. through Adhyaksha/Mukhya Pravartak v. State of
U.P. through Principal Secretary, Panchayat Raj Department, Lucknow
and others, Misc. Bench No. 6559 of 2015, 2018 (2) ADJ 431, decided
on 12.01.2018, a Division Bench considered the similar Government
Order dated 17.10.1995. That scheme also moved territorially from the
concerned village to the Nyaya Panchayat, the Development Block and
the district. The Division Bench explained that the earlier scheme was

9
WRIC No. - 30242 of 2026
framed as a measure of social justice so that the benefit reached persons
of the fishermen community traditionally engaged in fishing, and the
leases of ponds and tanks did not pass into the hands of middlemen or
anti-social elements. It applied the preference strictly and upheld the
allotment in favour of the society falling in the higher category.
22. The 2018 Division Bench followed the Full Bench decision in Ram
Kumar and others v. State of U.P. and others, 2006 (24) LCD 59. The
Full Bench held that the preference has a rational nexus with the object
of providing livelihood to fishermen and fishermen cooperative
societies. The beneficiaries form a distinct class founded on an
intelligible differentia. An unrestricted auction based only on the highest
bid would enable big contractors and moneyed persons to displace poor
fishermen who are unable to organise themselves on equal economic
terms.
23. The Full Bench further held that revenue maximisation is not the
only object of settlement of fishing rights. Every eligible claimant has a
right to consideration, but the consideration is according to the
preference prescribed by the policy. The restrictions are reasonable for
the purposes of Article 19(1)(g), and the classification does not violate
Article 14. At the same time, the settlement must receive proper and
extensive publicity so that all persons eligible to participate are aware of
the process. Without such notice, the settlement itself may become
arbitrary.
24. The same constitutional approach is reflected in Parvej Aktar and
others v. Union of India and others, (1993) 2 SCC 221. The Supreme
Court upheld protective restrictions intended to secure the livelihood of
handloom weavers who faced unequal competition from a stronger

10
WRIC No. - 30242 of 2026
economic sector. The Court held that such restrictions were reasonable
and derived support from Article 43. The relevance of that principle to
fishermen cooperative societies was expressly noticed by the Division
Bench in the judgment of 2024.
25. Article 21 supplies the livelihood dimension of the policy. In Olga
Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation, (1985) 3 SCC 545, the
Supreme Court recognised livelihood as an integral facet of the right to
life. That principle does not confer a vested right upon any society to
receive a particular fishing lease. It does, however, reinforce the
requirement that the State must administer a livelihood-oriented policy
fairly, without an exclusion unsupported by its text, and must consider
every eligible claimant in accordance with the prescribed preference.
26. The Government Order dated 10.01.2019 was directly examined in
Matsya Jivi Sahkari Samiti Limited (supra). The Division Bench upheld
its validity. Paragraph 26 holds that the Government Order does not
violate Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) and emphasises proper and extensive
publicity so that all eligible persons may know of and participate in the
settlement. Paragraph 24 treats Explanation 3 as determining which
District Magistrate will conduct the settlement and records that the
District Magistrate, Auraiya had issued a joint advertisement for Auraiya
and Jalaun.
27. The reason for dismissal of the petition in that case is equally
important. The registered area of operation of the petitioner society
remained Vikas Khand Chakarnagar, District Etawah. Its bye-laws had
not been amended after reorganisation of the districts. The claim failed
because the society was not entitled to operate outside its registered area.
It did not fail on the ground that a society from one of the two bank-side

11
WRIC No. - 30242 of 2026
districts was ineligible whenever the authority of the other district
conducted the settlement.
28. Paragraphs 29 to 31 of the judgment adopt the reasoning of the 2018
Division Bench and the Full Bench in Ram Kumar (supra). Paragraphs
46 and 47 then state the controlling limits of judicial review. The Court
will not interfere with a policy merely because it affects a party or
because another policy may appear better. Interference is permissible
when the policy is contrary to statute or the Constitution, or is manifestly
arbitrary, capricious or mala fide. The object of this policy, the Division
Bench reiterates, is to provide livelihood to fishermen and similar
communities and to give preference to their cooperative societies so that
they may organise themselves and carry on their traditional vocation for
the benefit of a large part of the weaker section of society.
29. The same limit is stated in Fertilizer Corporation Kamgar Union
(Regd.), Sindri v. Union of India, (1981) 1 SCC 568, Directorate of Film
Festivals v. Gaurav Ashwin Jain, (2007) 4 SCC 737, Indian Railway
Catering and Tourism Corporation Ltd. v. Indian Railway Major and
Minor Caterers Association, (2011) 12 SCC 792, and Jacob Puliyel v.
Union of India, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 533, all of which were considered
by the Division Bench. Judicial review examines whether executive
policy is lawful, fair and free from manifest arbitrariness; it does not
permit the Court to sit as an appellate policy-maker or to replace the
executive choice with another formulation merely because it appears
preferable.
30. Those holdings bind the present consideration. This Court is neither
rewriting the Government Order nor selecting a preferable policy. The
policy, including its territorial priority, has already been upheld. The

12
WRIC No. - 30242 of 2026
present task is to enforce the policy as written and to prevent either
departmental construction from adding to it or taking away from it.
31. Tested on Article 14, the geographical progression in clause ( ) is
ग
valid because proximity to the identified fishing area bears a rational
connection with the livelihood of the local fishing community. Equal
treatment in this context does not mean that all eligible societies occupy
the same rank. It means that all societies which satisfy the eligibility
conditions receive a fair opportunity to enter the process and are
thereafter treated according to the same published order of priority.
32. Article 19(1)(g) does not require an unrestricted auction in which the
highest bidder alone prevails. The settled law permits protective
preferences for local fishermen and their cooperative societies. The right
asserted by the petitioners is therefore not a right to compete free of the
scheme. It is a right to be considered within the scheme, subject to the
priority which the scheme lawfully imposes.
33. Article 21 also does not guarantee the petitioners a lease. The
livelihood object is secured by a transparent process, proper publicity,
verification of eligibility, and faithful application of the territorial
priority. An otherwise eligible society cannot be excluded by an
additional bank-wise condition which the Government Order does not
state. Equally, a society from the opposite bank cannot rely upon
simultaneous participation to displace a society falling in a higher
category under clause ( ).
ग
34. The apprehension that larger societies may repeatedly win the
auction is answered by the structure of the Government Order itself. The
auction is not open to every bidder in one undifferentiated field. The
eligibility list must first be prepared. The society of the concerned

13
WRIC No. - 30242 of 2026
village receives the first preference; the inquiry then moves successively
to the concerned Nyaya Panchayat, Development Block, district, State
and the remaining categories. Where more than one society falls within
the same applicable category, Explanation 2 permits an auction among
their authorised representatives. The preference, and not a district-wide
exclusion absent from the text, is the instrument chosen by the State to
protect the smaller local fisherman.
35. The expression “simultaneously and on equal terms” in paragraph 11
of the Director's personal affidavit must be understood in that limited
sense. It permits all otherwise eligible societies connected with the
identified fishing area to submit their claims and take part in the
proceedings conducted by the District Magistrate assigned for that year.
It does not flatten the categories in clause ( ). Before accepting a bid, the
ग
authority must determine the applicable category of each society and
give effect to the order of priority.
36. This defect is evident in the impugned communication dated
15.07.2026 issued by the Assistant Director of Fisheries, Jalaun. It does
not place all otherwise eligible societies in the field of consideration and
then apply the priority prescribed by clause ( ). Instead, it creates two
ग
separate stages. In the first stage, only the eligible fishermen cooperative
societies of District Jalaun are considered in the prescribed order of
priority. The petitioners are not placed in that field at all. A society of
District Auraiya is relegated to the second stage and can be considered
only if no eligible society of District Jalaun applies or qualifies. The
communication thus makes the society's location in the district
conducting the auction a threshold condition before the prescribed
priority is applied. In doing so, it converts the rotation of the conducting

14
WRIC No. - 30242 of 2026
authority into a rotation of eligibility and introduces a substantive
restriction which is not found in Explanation 3. Such an administrative
construction cannot amend the Government Order and is inconsistent
with the joint-settlement understanding recorded in paragraph 24 of
Matsya Jivi Sahkari Samiti Limited (supra).
37. We accordingly hold that Explanation 3 determines the District
Magistrate or district authority competent to conduct the settlement in
the particular year for administrative convenience. It does not exclude an
otherwise eligible fishermen cooperative society situated on the opposite
bank of the same identified fishing area. Societies of both bank-side
districts may participate simultaneously, subject to verification of their
registration, recognition, area of operation and other eligibility
requirements. The actual allotment must be made strictly in the order of
priority prescribed by clause ( ). Where more than one society falls in
ग
the same applicable category, the settlement may proceed in the manner
provided by Explanation 2.
38. The petitioners' claim must therefore succeed to the extent that
petitioner no. 1 cannot be kept out merely because the auction is being
conducted by an authority in District Jalaun. This finding does not
amount to a declaration that petitioner no. 1 is eligible or that it falls in
any particular category of priority. Those matters have to be verified
from its registration, bye-laws, recognised area of operation,
composition, certificates and the location of the identified fishing area.
39. In view of the above, the impugned communication dated
15.07.2026 issued by the Assistant Director of Fisheries, Jalaun deserves
to be quashed and is hereby quashed insofar as it postpones
consideration of eligible societies of District Auraiya until the field of

15
WRIC No. - 30242 of 2026
eligible societies of District Jalaun is exhausted. The respondents shall
permit petitioner no. 1 to participate in the settlement proceedings
concerning Part I of river Yamuna, subject to verification of its
registration, area of operation, eligibility certificates, no-dues certificates
and all other requirements of the Government Order dated 10.01.2019.
40. Since the auction proceedings were made subject to the result of this
Writ Petition by the order dated 11.08.2026, the competent authority
shall, after affording an opportunity of hearing to any affected allottee,
review any action already taken and pass the necessary consequential
order in conformity with this judgment within six weeks from the date of
receipt of its certified copy.
41. The writ petition stands allowed as above. However, there shall be
no order as to costs.
(Garima Prashad,J.) (Ajit Kumar,J.)
October 28, 2026
Kuldeep
Digitally signed by :-
KULDEEP SINGH
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad