The Bombay High Court has delivered a significant ruling affirming that substantive policy changes affecting the rights of cooperative fishing societies cannot be effected through a corrigendum. The judgment reinforces the principle that procedural instruments like corrigenda and addenda are meant for minor corrections, not for dismantling long-standing statutory protections granted to marginalized communities.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Mukne Dharan Prathamik Bhujalashayeen Sahakari Sanstha Ltd., is a registered cooperative fishing society operating over the Mukne Dam in Nashik. Its members, traditional fishermen, have engaged in fishing activities in the reservoir for decades. The society’s rights were historically protected under a series of government policies dating back to 1950, which prioritized cooperative societies in the allocation of fishing leases.
Procedural History
- 1950 - 2019: Government consistently granted priority to cooperative societies in leasing reservoirs, often without auction.
- 3rd July 2019: Government issued a new policy (GR) categorizing reservoirs and retaining priority for registered societies, while allowing the Maharashtra Fisheries Development Corporation (MFDC) to set minimum bid prices.
- 3rd January 2022: A corrigendum was issued, permitting MFDC to conduct open e-tenders and exempting it from Clause 13 of the 2019 GR, which mandated priority for local societies.
- 12th September 2022: An addendum introduced a 20% discount and right of first refusal for societies - but only if they participated in the e-tender.
- 15th March 2023: E-tender issued for Mukne Dam with a minimum bid of ₹24.15 lakh - beyond the financial reach of the petitioner.
- 11th May 2023: Lease awarded to private entity M/s Pure Fisheries.
- 24th July 2023: Writ petition filed challenging the corrigendum, addendum, and lease order.
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought quashing of the corrigendum and addendum, declaration that the lease to M/s Pure Fisheries is void, and restoration of the prior policy granting priority to cooperative societies.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether a corrigendum can lawfully alter the substantive rights of cooperative fishing societies by replacing a priority-based allocation system with an open e-tender process, thereby overriding the original Government Resolution.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner argued that the corrigendum fundamentally changed the policy by removing the mandatory priority for registered cooperative societies under Clause 13 of the 2019 GR. Reliance was placed on Rule 10 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue (Nistar Pratak and Regulation of Fishing) Rules, 1973, which mandates preference for cooperative societies. The petitioner cited Masaidevi Vividh Karyakari Sahakari Seva Sanstha Maryadit v. State of Maharashtra (2025 SCC OnLine SC 713), emphasizing that policy changes cannot be made through informal instruments like corrigenda if they frustrate the object of the law. The 20% discount in the addendum was dismissed as illusory, given the financial incapacity of societies to compete with private bidders.
For the Respondent
The State and MFDC contended that the corrigendum merely clarified ambiguity in Clause 11 regarding MFDC’s autonomy. They argued that no society had participated in the e-tender, so no prejudice occurred. The addendum, they claimed, preserved rights through first refusal and discount. Respondent No.4 emphasized substantial investments (₹1.29 crore) and urged the court to avoid disruption. The respondents also cited Writ Petition No. 4893/2024, where a similar challenge was dismissed on grounds of non-participation, not on merits.
The Court's Analysis
The Court undertook a rigorous textual and contextual analysis of the terms "corrigendum" and "addendum." Citing Black’s Law Dictionary, it emphasized that a corrigendum is meant to correct typographical or clerical errors discovered after publication - not to introduce new policy frameworks. The original Government Resolution dated 3rd July 2019 was clear: while MFDC could set minimum prices, Clause 13 mandated a tiered priority system favoring registered societies. The corrigendum, by exempting MFDC from Clause 13 and permitting unrestricted e-tenders, eliminated this priority structure entirely.
"The corrigendum has resulted in bringing drastic change in the Policy of the Government. The MFDC has been exempted from giving priority to the Fishing Societies registered on the reservoir, by directly permitting to issue e-tender calling bids from public at large."
The Court distinguished this from mere clarification, noting that the change was not corrective but transformative. The addendum’s 20% discount and right of first refusal were deemed ineffective because they were conditional on participation in a process designed to exclude societies financially. The Court referenced its own prior decision in Writ Petition No. 3712/2017, where a similar corrigendum altering eligibility criteria was struck down.
The Court rejected the argument that non-participation by the petitioner validated the process, holding that the state cannot create a system so structurally biased that meaningful participation is impossible for the intended beneficiaries. The policy shift violated Article 14 by being arbitrary and Article 46 by undermining the state’s duty to protect weaker sections.
The Verdict
The petitioner succeeded. The Court held that the corrigendum dated 3rd January 2022 and addendum dated 12th September 2022 were ultra vires because they altered substantive policy without following due procedure. The lease order and agreement awarded to M/s Pure Fisheries were quashed. The respondent was entitled to a refund of unutilized tender amounts, but the lease was terminated.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Policy Changes Require Formal Government Resolutions
- Practitioners must challenge any administrative instrument - corrigendum, notification, or circular - that substitutes a statutory policy without a fresh Government Resolution.
- Courts will scrutinize whether the change is corrective or transformative; transformative changes are void if not enacted through proper legislative or executive procedure.
Priority Rights Cannot Be Diluted Through Conditional Benefits
- Conditional advantages (e.g., 20% discount) are legally insufficient if they require participation in a system designed to exclude the intended beneficiaries.
- Where a community has historically held preferential rights, any erosion must be justified by compelling public interest and enacted through transparent, participatory processes.
Financial Imbalance Cannot Justify Exclusion
-
The court recognized that economic disparity between cooperatives and private entities renders "equal opportunity" a legal fiction.
-
Practitioners should argue that procedural neutrality is invalid when substantive inequality is institutionalized by design.
-
Always verify whether a policy instrument is a corrigendum, addendum, or substantive GR - each has distinct legal weight.
-
In cases involving marginalized groups, invoke Article 46 and Rule 10 of the 1973 Fishing Rules to establish historical entitlement.
-
File writ petitions promptly after the issuance of a corrigendum, not after the lease is awarded, to avoid laches arguments.
