The Madhya Pradesh High Court has reinstated the ban on fishing in Mandsaur's Teliya Talab, emphasizing the importance of respecting the religious sentiments of devotees who frequent the temples situated along the talab's banks.

Justices Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Pranay Verma, presiding over a division bench, highlighted that the economic impact on fishermen, though significant, cannot justify lifting the fishing ban imposed by the Municipality based on religious sentiments.

The Court emphasized that local authorities are in the best position to make decisions regarding bans related to public sentiments. Initially, the Municipal Council imposed the ban on fishing activities in Teliya Talab due to religious reasons. However, the Collector overturned this decision in 2018, suspending the municipality's resolution and lifting the ban.

Subsequently, a doctor filed a public interest litigation challenging the Collector's decision. The petitioner highlighted the presence of several temples and ashrams on the pond's banks, along with the substantial influx of tourists. The division bench of Justices Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Pranay Verma, upon examining the provisions of the MP Municipalities Act, stated that the resolution could have been halted only if it posed a threat to the municipality's or the public's interests.

The Court highlighted that the resolution could have been suspended if it caused or was likely to cause public injury, annoyance, or breach of peace. However, the Court observed that the Collector hadn't documented any such conclusions.

The sole reason provided was the impact on hundreds of fishermen's livelihoods. The Court firmly stated that this rationale couldn't justify lifting the ban. Referencing a legal precedent, the Court expressed that the Collector could have intervened only if the resolution hadn't been implemented yet. Conversely, the Court found that the resolution had been in effect for a minimum of five years.

“The Collector had no authority to call for a review or to stay the resolution and further direct grant of patta. It is also not known as to how the Collector has formed an opinion that the resolution of the Municipal Council is not in conformity with law or with the rules or bye-laws made thereunder,” it observed.

In its conclusion, the Court determined that the Collector had exceeded their authority and jurisdiction. Consequently, the order issued in 2018 and the subsequent appellate order by the Additional Commissioner in Ujjain were both overturned. Considering that the Court had halted the orders in January 2020, it specified that the State was not in a position to confirm them. As a result, the Court also nullified the order affirming the Collector's decision.

Advocate Nitin Phadke represented the petitioner

Senior Counsel Veer Kumar Jain with Advocate Divyansh Luniya represented the Municipal Council Mandsaur

Additional Advocate General Anand Soni represented the State