Competent authority must decide pending fisheries-rights representations by a reasoned order within four weeks.

The petitioner, a registered Fisheries Cooperative Society under the M.P. Societies Registration Act, 1973, claimed to be engaged in fisheries activities in District Shivpuri and to have Gram Panchayat Budhada within its notified working area.

The petitioner asserted that the Upper Kaketo Dam, constructed over the Parvati River on the boundary of Districts Shivpuri and Sheopur, fell within its operational area.

Relying on the Madhya Pradesh Fisheries Policy and Programme for Granting Fisheries Rights to the Three-Tier Panchayats, particularly the provisions concerning ponds exceeding 10 hectares but less than 100 hectares, the petitioner applied for a ten-year grant of fisheries rights and claimed that its case had been recommended by the competent authority.

The petitioner submitted representations dated 08.01.2019 to the Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat, Sheopur, and 15.10.2025 to the Collector, Sheopur, seeking grant of lease/patta and permission to conduct fisheries activities in the Upper Kaketo Dam.

As the representations remained undecided, the petitioner invoked Article 226 of the Constitution seeking a direction for their consideration.

Whether the competent authority should be directed to consider and decide the petitioner’s pending representations concerning grant of fisheries rights and permission to conduct fisheries activities in the Upper Kaketo Dam.

Whether the competent authority was required to examine the petitioner’s registration, eligibility, alleged recommendation, submitted documents, notified working area, and the applicable Fisheries Policy while deciding the representations.

The Court exercised its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a limited mandamus requiring consideration of pending representations by the competent authority.

The Court applied the Madhya Pradesh Fisheries Policy and Programme for Granting Fisheries Rights to the Three-Tier Panchayats, including the Fisheries Policy, 2008, as the governing framework for determination of fisheries rights.

The Court did not adjudicate the petitioner’s substantive entitlement and directed only a reasoned and speaking determination in accordance with law.

Since the petition primarily sought disposal of the representations and the State did not oppose consideration of the grievance in accordance with law, the Court found it appropriate to issue a time-bound direction rather than examine the merits of the competing claims.

The competent authority was directed to consider the representations dated 08.01.2019 and 15.10.2025, examine the petitioner’s registration and eligibility, the alleged recommendation in its favour, the documents produced, and whether the Upper Kaketo Dam fell within the petitioner society’s notified working area, while applying the relevant rules and Fisheries Policy, 2008.

The direction was expressly issued without expressing any opinion on the merits.

It directed the competent respondent authority to consider and decide the petitioner’s representations dated 08.01.2019 and 15.10.2025 by a reasoned and speaking order, in accordance with the applicable rules, the Fisheries Policy, 2008, and other relevant policy provisions, within four weeks from receipt of a certified copy of the order.