Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Rajesh Kumar vs State Of Rajasthan on 20 February, 2024
Author: Nupur Bhati
Bench: Nupur Bhati
[2024:RJ-JD:8401]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
AT JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 105/2024
Rajesh Kumar S/o Shri Sheo Karam, aged about 45 years, R/o
Ward No. 7 VPO, Netewala, Tehsil and District Sri Ganganagar,
Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan through the Chief Engineer, Irrigation
North, Hanumangarh (Raj).
2. The Superintending Engineer, Water Resource Circle,
Sriganganagar (Raj.).
3. Project Chairman, Gang Canal Project, Sriganganagar
(Raj.).
4. Mohit S/o Shri Ramjas, Resident of Chak 4 F Chhoti,
Tehsil and District Sri Ganganagar (Rajasthan)
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sanjeet Purohit.
For Respondent(s) : Ms. Abhilasha Bora.
Mr. Sandeep Bishnoi on behalf of
Mr. Trilok Joshi, R-4.
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE NUPUR BHATI
JUDGMENT
Reportable Reserved on- 16/02/2024 Pronounced on- 20/02/2024
1. The petitioner has preferred the present writ petition questioning the validity of the order 22.12.2023 (Annexure-9) issued by Superintending Engineer, Water Resources Circle, Sri Ganganagar, and sought following relief(s):
"It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this petition for writ may kindly be allowed, and (Downloaded on 21/02/2024 at 08:53:01 PM) [2024:RJ-JD:8401] (2 of 16) [CW-105/2024]
(i) By an appropriate writ, order or direction the order dated 22.12.2023 Annex.9 passed by the Superintendent Engineer is already barred by jurisdiction and hence deserves to be illegal and be quashed and set aside;
(ii) By an appropriate writ, order of direction the respondent be directed to let the petitioner perform his duties on the post of the WUA Sahuwala Chairman/President.
(iii) Any other writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, may kindly be passed in favour of the humble petitioner."
2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is the elected President of Water User Association, Sahuwala (for brevity, hereinafter referred to as 'WUA Sahuwala'') since 20.02.2022 and is also the elected Chairman of Distributory Committee of HH Canal since 09.03.2022.
3. There was an ongoing dispute regarding the revenue land and water turn between two brothers, Brij Lal and Chandu Lal, who filed their complaint against the then WUA President. Thereafter, the process was initiated against him. The petitioner in the meanwhile came to be elected as the new WUA President. Thereafter, one Mr. Mohit, private respondent no. 4 in the present petition and the grandson of Chandu Lal, filed a writ petition before this Hon'ble Court being SBCWP No.13262/2023, wherein after hearing the parties, this Hon'ble Court passed an order dated 19.10.2023 (Annexure-3), wherein the respondents were directed to explore the possibilities of starting the water turn as per the available revenue record.
4. After passing of the order dated 19.10.2023 by the Hon'ble Court, Mohit, private respondent no. 4, had filed an application before the Superintending Engineer, Water Resource Circle, (Downloaded on 21/02/2024 at 08:53:01 PM) [2024:RJ-JD:8401] (3 of 16) [CW-105/2024] Sriganganagar requesting for compliance of order dated 19.10.2023 (Annexure-3). It is contended that the petitioner thereafter issued the water turn slips in accordance with the revenue record, however, the same were not accepted by the parties, therefore, the petitioner had pasted the same on the Notice Board of Gram Panchayat, Sahuwala. The petitioner also issued a temporary water turn proposal, wherein new water turn had been fixed in compliance of the order passed by Hon'ble High Court as well as the Superintending Engineer (Annexure-4). The water turn slips were also pasted on the Notice Board of Gram Panchayat Sahuwala. Thereafter, on the demand of water turn slip raised by the agriculturists, the President of WUA Sahuwala issued a communication dated 25.11.2023 (Annexure-5) in the name of Executive Engineer Water Resources South Division in compliance of the order 19.10.2023 passed by the Hon'ble Court.
5. The Superintending Engineer Water Resource, Circle Sri Ganganagar, issued a Notice dated 19.12.2023 (Annexure-8) directing the petitioner to appear before it on 20.12.2023 at 3:00 PM. It is contended that pursuant to aforesaid notice the petitioner submitted reply and also appeared before him. Thereafter, the Superintending Engineer Water Resource, Circle Sri Ganganagar, issued an Office Order dated 22.12.2023 (Annexure-9), whereby the petitioner has been found guilty under Section 45 of the Rajasthan Farmers Participation in Management of Irrigation System Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and thereby ordered the dissolution of the Committee as well as removal of the petitioner as Chairman.
(Downloaded on 21/02/2024 at 08:53:01 PM) [2024:RJ-JD:8401] (4 of 16) [CW-105/2024]
6. Thus, being aggrieved of the order passed by Superintending Engineer Water Resource, Circle Sri Ganganagar, dated 22.12.2023 (Annexure-9), the petitioner has preferred this writ petition.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the dispute between the parties concerned is going on for many years and the subject matter varies from civil to revenue and then to criminal. He further submitted that Mohit, private respondent no. 4, had filed various complaints against the concerned authorities without any reason. He also submitted that the Hon'ble Court vide order dated 19.10.2023 (Annexure-3) directed the petitioner to merely explore the possibilities, and the said direction has already been complied with by the petitioner.
8. Moreover, he submitted that while the petitioner had duly complied with the order, it was the fault on part of the parties litigating with each other and since they were reluctant in not accepting the water turn slips, the petitioner had no resort except to paste the same on the Notice Board of Gram Panchayat, Sahuwala. The petitioner got the signatures of Sarpanch and one TC member on the notice itself. He further submitted that on another occasion, the petitioner issued a communication dated 25.11.2023 (Annexure-5) in the name of the Executive Engineer Water Resources South Division while enclosing therewith copies of water turn slips.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had not committed any default in compliance of the order passed by the Hon'ble Court dated 19.10.2023 and, (Downloaded on 21/02/2024 at 08:53:01 PM) [2024:RJ-JD:8401] (5 of 16) [CW-105/2024] therefore, the order passed by Superintending Engineer Water Resource, Circle Sri Ganganagar, is liable to be quashed, inasmuch as the Superintending Engineer is not the competent authority under Section 23 of the Act. He further submitted that under Section 45 of the Act, only the competent authority is empowered to remove the petitioner from his post and that too when the petitioner's action or inaction falls under the disqualifications mentioned therein. He further submitted that the competent authority is the Chief Engineer and not the Superintending Engineer and thus the order dated 22.12.2023 (Annexure-9) is barred by jurisdiction.
10. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mohinder Singh Gill and Ors. Vs. The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi and Ors. reported in (1978) 1 SCC 405. The relevant para of the judgment is reproduced as under:-
"8 . The second equally relevant matter is that when a statutory functionary makes an order based on certain grounds, its validity must be judged by the reasons so mentioned and cannot be supplemented by fresh reasons in the shape of affidavit or otherwise. Otherwise, an order bad in the beginning may, by the time it comes to court on account of a challenge, get validated by additional grounds later brought out. We may here draw attention to the observations of Bose J. in Gordhandas Bhanji A.I.T. 1952 S.C. 16. Public orders, publicly made, in exercise of a statutory authority cannot be construed in the light of explanations subsequently given by the officer making the order of what he meant, or of what was in his mind, or what he intended to do. Public orders made by public authorities are meant to have public effect and are intended to effect the acting and conduct of those to whom they are addressed and must be construed objectively with reference to the language used in the order itself."(Downloaded on 21/02/2024 at 08:53:01 PM)
[2024:RJ-JD:8401] (6 of 16) [CW-105/2024]
11. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that the action is arbitrary since the authorities ought to have considered that the petitioner is an elected representative of the Water Users Association and not a Government servant and thus, the respondent no. 2 could not have passed the order in such an arbitrary manner. For the purpose of the same, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the decision passed by this Hon'ble High Court in the case of Rajaram Gurjar v. State of Rajasthan [S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 21332 of 2019 decided on 14.02.2020], wherein it has been observed that the elected representative shall not be equated with a government servant in the matter of suspension. The relevant para is reproduced as under:-
"31. This court finds that elected representatives need to be dealt with different approach in the matter of suspension and they cannot be equated with the government servant. The State Government must have sufficient reasons to form an opinion for placing such elected representative under suspension and such suspension order should not be arbitrary and irrational or to settle the political motives or for political considerations."
12. He further submitted that the before passing the order dated 22.12.2023 (Annexure-9), opportunity of hearing was not given to the petitioner thus, the order is bad in law for the reason that it violates the very principle of natural justice, audi ultarem partem. For the purpose of the same, learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance upon the case of Jan Mohd. v. the State of Rajasthan reported in AIR 1993 Raj. 86. The relevant para is reproduced as under:-
(Downloaded on 21/02/2024 at 08:53:01 PM)
[2024:RJ-JD:8401] (7 of 16) [CW-105/2024] "41. Our attention was next drawn to a decision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Liberty Oil Mills v.
Union of India : AIR 1984 SC 1271, wherein their Lordships of the Supreme Court considered the effect of clauses 8-A and 8-B of the Imports (Control) Order, 1955. It was observed as under at page 1284:
"On the initiation of a proceeding under Clause 8 by the commencement of investigation, the authority has to address itself to the question whether any action of an interim nature to prevent further harm or mischief is warranted pending investigation. Licences may have already been issued and allotment of imported goods may have already been made. The authority may consider it desirable to prevent the person from importing goods pursuant to the licences or to prevent him from obtaining the imported goods allotted to him through the specified agencies. If so, the authority may make an order under Clause 8-A suspending the importation of goods, the grant of licences on the allotment of imported goods. But clause 10 provides that no action under Clause 8-A may be taken without giving a reasonable opportunity to the person concerned. It is obviously thought that the right such as it may, to obtain a licence or allotment of goods having become crystallised into a licence or an allotment, an order under Clause 8-A may have immediate and grave prejudicial repercussion on the person concerned making it desirable that he should be heard before an order of suspension is made so it is that Clause 8-A contemplates a pre- decisional hearing. On the other hand, licences may not yet have been issued and allotments may yet have to be made. The appropriate authority may be satisfied that it would not be in the public interest to issues licences or make allotments to the person concerned without ascertaining further details with regard to the allegations against him. In such cases, the authority may make an order of abeyance under Clause 8-B. Both clauses 8-A and 8-B contemplate action of an interim nature pending investigation into allegations under Clause
8. Ordinarily, in the absence of anything more, it would not be necessary to give an opportunity to the person concerned before proceeding to take action under Clause 8-A or Clause 8-B. But while Clause 8-B deals with the right to obtain licences and the right to obtain allotments. Clause 8-A deals with rights which have flowered into licences and allotments. A person to whom licences have been granted or allotments made may have arranged his affairs on that basis and entered into transactions with others and, to him the consequences of action under Clause 8-A may be truly disastrous whereas the consequences of action under Clause 8-B may not be so imminently harmful. It is presumably because of this lively difference between clauses 8- A and 8-B that clause 10 provides for a pre-(Downloaded on 21/02/2024 at 08:53:01 PM)
[2024:RJ-JD:8401] (8 of 16) [CW-105/2024] decisional opportunity in the case of action under Clause 8-A and does not so provide in the case of action under Clause 8-B. Again, it is presumably because of this difference that clause 10 while providing for an appeal against a decision under Clause 8-A does not provide for an appeal against a decision under Clause 8-B. Not that it makes any difference because sections 4-M and 4-N of the Act provide for an appeal and a revision against any decision or order made under the Act. It does not mean that the requirements of natural justice are not be met at all in the case of action under Clause 8-B. The requirements of natural justice will be met in the case of action under Clause 8-B by considering bona fide any representation that may be made in that behalf by the person aggrieved. Clause 8-B itself gives an indication that such a post-decisional opportunity on the request of the person concerned is contemplated. Action under Clause 8-B is to be taken if the authority is so satisfied in the public interest that such action may be taken without ascertaining further details in regard to the allegations. It clearly implies that when further facts are ascertained by the authority or brought to the notice of the authority, such action may be reviewed. While ex parte interim orders may always be made without a pre-decisional opportunity or without the order itself providing for a post- decisional opportunity, the principles of natural justice which are never excluded will be satisfied if a post-decisional opportunity is given, if demanded. In the case of action under Clause 8-B it is not necessary to give a pre-decisional opportunity but a post-decisional opportunity must be given if so requested by the person affected."
Our attention was next drawn to a decision of their Lordships of the Supreme in Re-Special Courts Bill, 1978, AIR 1979 SC 478, wherein in para 73 of the judgment, certain principles of natural justice have been extracted by their Lordships of. the Supreme Court. This authority: deals with classification. We are presently, not concerned with the classification and hence, this authority has no application to the facts of this case."
13. Per Contra, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the competent authority has rightly passed the order dated 22.12.2023 (Annexure-9) without any malafide intention and after giving ample opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, while exercising powers enshrined under Section 22 and 45 of the Act read with Rule 56 of the Rajasthan Farmers' Participation in (Downloaded on 21/02/2024 at 08:53:01 PM) [2024:RJ-JD:8401] (9 of 16) [CW-105/2024] Management of Irrigation Systems Rules, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as 'Rules of 2002').
14. She also submitted that as per Section 17 (a) of the Act, both preparation as well as implementation of the 'Barabandi', is the function of the WUA and that the implementation was not done by the petitioner in the present case. She further submitted that upon physical inspection being made by concerned Halka Patwari, it was found that only the Notice dated 23.10.2023 was pasted at the main gate of the Panchayat Bhawan, however, the amended water slips were not pasted. Thus, the petitioner has rightly been removed from his post, as he had failed to perform his functions and the same being a valid ground for disqualification under Section 45 of the Act. Section 17(a) of the Act is reproduced as under: -
"17. Functions of the Water Users' Association - The Water Users' Association shall perform the following functions, namely:-
(a) to prepare and implement a warabandi schedule for each irrigation season, consistent with the operational plan, based upon the entitlement, area, soil and cropping pattern;
xxxx"
15. I have considered the submissions made by counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record and judgments cited at the Bar.
16. This Court observes that in the order impugned dated 22.12.2023 (Annexure-9), the respondents have specifically observed that on 20.12.2023, the Executive Engineer, President WUA Sahuwala and private respondent No.4 were present before the concerned authority. In pursuance of order dated 19.10.2023 (Downloaded on 21/02/2024 at 08:53:01 PM) [2024:RJ-JD:8401] (10 of 16) [CW-105/2024] passed in SBCWP No.13262/2023, the private respondent No.4 demanded water slips. Although, the petitioner apprised that on account of dispute between the parties, the water slips were pasted on the Notice Board, however, he again assured that the water slips would be pasted by 21.10.2023 and sought time to produce report in this regard. Thereafter, on 22.12.2023, the petitioner failed to produce any evidence or report before the concerned authority though the petitioner was party respondent No.4 in the SBCWP No.13262/2023 and deliberately did not comply with the order passed in the said writ petition.
17. Moreover, it is also seen from the impugned order that the petitioner did not comply with the order passed by the Hon'ble Court dated 19.10.2023 and the water slip of Chak 4 F Choti Murrabba No. 30 and 51 issued in the name of Chandu Lal, was changed to the name of Brij Lal, but position was required to be restored and new water slips were required to be issued in the name of Chandulal, grandfather of Mohit, private respondent No.4. Thus, being appalled by the action on the part of petitioner in not issuing water slips in favour of Mohit (petitioner in SBCWP No.13262/2023 and private respondent No.4 herein), he submitted an application for taking appropriate action against the petitioner/President. The operative portion of the order impugned dated 22.12.2023 (Annexure-9) reads as under: -
"izdj.k esa fnukad 20-12-2023 dks vf/k'kk"kh vfHk;Urk] v/;{k ty mi;ksDrk laxr lkgqokyk o izkFkhZ mifLFkr vk;sA izkFkhZ }kjk ;kfpdk la[;k 13262@2023 esa ikfjr vkns'k fnukad 19-10- 2023 dh ikyuk esa ikuh dh iphZ fnyk;s tkus dh ekaxh dh xbZA bl lEcU/k esa v/;{k ty mi;ksDrk laxr lkgqokyk us voxr (Downloaded on 21/02/2024 at 08:53:01 PM) [2024:RJ-JD:8401] (11 of 16) [CW-105/2024] djok;k fd ikuh dh iphZ esa nksuksa i{kdkjksa esa vkilh fookn gksus ds dkj.k ikuh dh iphZ lkoZtfud LFky ij pLik dj nh xbZ gS] ijUrq v/;{k }kjk ,slk dksbZ lk{; izLrqr ugha fd;k x;k gS ftlls Li"V ugha gksrk gS fd ikuh dh iphZ lkoZtfud LFky ij pLik dh xbZ gSA v/;{k }kjk iqu% ikuh dh iphZ lkoZtfud LFky ij fnukad 21-10-2023 rd pLik dj lk{; lfgr fjiksVZ izLrqr dk fuosnu fd;k x;kA v/;{; ty mi;ksDrk laxe }kjk izdj.k esa vkt fnukad 22-12-2023 rd ikuh dh iphZ ds lEcU/k dh xbZ dk;Zokgh dk dksbZ lk{;@fjiksVZ izLrqr ugha dh xbZ gSA ftlls Li"V gS fd v/;{k }kjk tkucq>dj ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; tks/kiqj esa nk;j ;kfpdk la[;k 13262@2023 esa Lo;a i{kdkj gksus ds mijkUr Hkh ekuuh; U;k;ky; ds vkns'k dh voKk@vogsyuk dj Lo;a ds fyf[kr@eksf[kd dFku fd;s tkus ds mijkUr ,oa foHkkx ds funsZ'kksa dh ikyuk ugha dj vius d``rO;ksa ,oa nkf;Roksa dk fu"BkiwoZd fuoZgu ugha fd;k tk jgk gSA vr% Jh jkts'k dqekj] v/;{k ty mi;ksDrk laxr lkgwokyk dks jktLFkku esa flapkbZ iz.kkyh ds izca/k esa d`"kdksa dh lgHkkfxrk fu;e 2000 ds vUrxZr iznRr d`R;ksa@'kfDr;ksa ds izfr mnklhurk cjrus] ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; tks/kiqj ds vkns'k dh voKk@vogsyuk djus vius fyf[kr esa fn;s x;s vk'oklu dh ikyuk ugha djus ,oa foHkkx }kjk iznRr vkns'kksa@funsZ'kksa dh vogsyuk fd;s tkus rFkk vf/k'kk"kh vfHk;Urk ty lalk/ku nf{k.k [k.M Jh xaxkuxj vuq'ka"kk ds vk/kkj ij jktLFkku d`"kd lgHkkfxrk vf/kfu;e&2000 dh /kkjk 45 ds vUrxZr ty mi;ksDrk laxe lkgqokyk dh izcU/k lfefr dk fo?kVu rqjUr izHkko ls fd;k tkrk gSA"
18. This court finds that the present matter does fall within the scope of Section 45 of the Act, since the provision very clearly stipulates that the 'Competent Authority' has the power of dissolution of the Managing Committee in case of abuse of powers and functions or any act, which is in contravention to the provisions of this Act. The said provision when harmoniously (Downloaded on 21/02/2024 at 08:53:01 PM) [2024:RJ-JD:8401] (12 of 16) [CW-105/2024] construed with Section 17 of the Act, states that one of the functions of the Water Users Association, is to prepare as well as implement the 'Barabandi' schedule for each irrigation system, and thus it is seen that the petitioner, being the President of the WUA as well as the Chairman of the Distributory Committee, was under an obligation and duty-bound not only to prepare but also implement the 'Barabandi' schedule, which he failed to do so. Thus, the Superintending Engineer has rightly construed the provisions of disqualification for removing the petitioner from his post. The relevant provision is reproduced as under:-
"45. Dissolution of Managing Committee of a Farmers' Organisation - In case of any embezzlement, fraud, abuse of powers and functions or any other act on the part of Managing Committee of a Farmers' Organisation in contravention of the provisions of this Act, the Competent Authority of the project area shall have power to dissolve the Managing Committee and to make transitional arrangements to carry out the functions of the Farmers' Organisation provided that in case of such dissolution the Managing Committee shall be re- constituted within a period of three months from the date of dissolution."
19. Upon the perusal of the documents submitted by the petitioner, it is seen that the Area of the Water User Association falls under the 'IGNP' and the power of dissolution of the Committee lies with the 'competent authority' under Section 45 of the Act read with Rule 56 of the Rules of 2002, which prescribes that the concerned 'Superintending Engineer' is the competent authority for IGNP and other major irrigation projects. Further, Section 22 of the Act lays down that such competent authority appointed by the Government shall be competent authority for every farmers' Organisation for the purpose of this Act and thus, the petitioner's contention that the Superintending Engineer is not (Downloaded on 21/02/2024 at 08:53:01 PM) [2024:RJ-JD:8401] (13 of 16) [CW-105/2024] the competent authority in the present case is devoid of merit. The relevant rule is reproduced as under:-
"56. Appointment of Competent Authority. -
For the purpose of the Act following shall be the competent authority : ― For IGNP Command Concerned Superintending Area Engineer in whose area a farmer's organization exists For Chambal Superintending Engineer CAD, Command Area: Kota For Mahi & Bisalpur & Concerned Superintending other Major Irrigation Engineer in whose area a Projects: farmer's organisation exists.
For all medium Concerned Executive Engineer
irrigation projects & in whose area a farmer's
CLI'S (Community organisation exists.
Lift Scheme with CCA
more than 500 ha.:
For all minor/small Concerned Assistant Engineer
irrigation works & in whose area a farmer's
CLI's more then 50 organisation exists.
ha. CCA and up to
500 ha. CCA:
For small Tanks, Concerned Vikas Adhikari of
Anicut, Johar, Khadin, the Panchayat Samiti"
Talab with Panchayats
and CLI's up to 50
ha.: CCA under their
control
20. The 'competent authority' has been defined under Section 2
(c) of the Act, which reads as under:
"2. Definitions.- (1) In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires:-
(c) 'Competent Authority means the Authority appointed under section 22"
21. Section 22 of the Act reads as under:
"22. Appointment of competent authority and his functions.- (1) the Government may by notification appoint such officer of the Irrigation Department or the Command Area Development Department or any other Department of the State, as may be considered necessary, to be the competent authority for every Farmers' Organisation for the purpose of this Act.
(Downloaded on 21/02/2024 at 08:53:01 PM) [2024:RJ-JD:8401] (14 of 16) [CW-105/2024] (2) The competent authority appointed under sub- section (1) shall be responsible to the respective Farmers' Organisation in the implementation and execution of all decisions taken by the farmers' Organisation in the manner as may be prescribed and shall provide technical advice and ensure that the work is executed in accordance with the technical parameters."
22. A perusal of the order dated 21.11.2023, placed on record by the respondents alongwith the reply as Annexure-R/4, would reveal that Hon'ble Division Bench in D.B. Spl. Appeal No.940/2023 while dealing with the controversy with respect to power dissolving the Committee by the Superintending Engineer, Water Resource Circle, Sriganganagar (Raj.), has held that under Section 45 of the Act, the competent authority was fully justified in dissolving the Managing Committee. The operative portion of the said order passed by Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court reads as under:
"7. Even when the notices were issued to the petitioner, the petitioner choose not to implement the order and also took no steps for the clarification/modification of the said order, therefore, the action of the Superintendent Engineer cannot be faulted.
8. So far as the order issued under Section 45 of the Act is concerned, Section 45 reads as under:
"In case of any embezzlement, fraud, abuse of powers and functions or any other act on the part of Managing Committee of a Farmer Organization, the Competent Authority shall have power to dissolve the Managing Committee."
9. Non implementation of orders passed by the Court, despite repeated notices in this regard, amounts to gross abuse of powers and functions, it cannot be said that the orders passed were beyond the powers conferred under Section 45 of the Act.
10. In view of above discussions, no case of interference is made out, the appeal is, therefore, dismissed."
23. This Court finds that vide order dated 19.10.2023 (Annexure-3) passed by the Hon'ble Court in SBCWP (Downloaded on 21/02/2024 at 08:53:01 PM) [2024:RJ-JD:8401] (15 of 16) [CW-105/2024] No.13262/2023 preferred by Mohit (private respondent No.4), the petitioner was directed to explore the possibilities and he was under an obligation to not only explore but after exploration if it was found that water turn can be started in favour of Mohit (private respondent No.4), then he was required to implement it as well. After the petitioner explored the possibility of starting the water turn, the petitioner had not implemented the same due to various reasons as contended by him, but the petitioner neither sought any clarification from the Hon'ble Court in SBCWP No.13262/2023 nor implemented the new water turn in favour of Mohit (private respondent No.4). This Court also finds that despite opportunities being granted to the petitioner, the petitioner failed to produce any evidence before the authority concerned fortifying the fact he had duly complied with the directions issued by this Court in SBCWP No.13262/2023. Thus, this court finds that the petitioner has not implemented or complied with the order dated 19.10.2023 (Annexure-3) passed by this Court in its true letter and spirit. The judgments cited by counsel for the petitioner do not apply to the case at hand.
24. Thus, in view of above discussion and looking to the fact that the order impugned dated 22.12.2023 (Annexure-9) has been passed by the competent authority after extending ample opportunities to the petitioner, however, the petitioner has not complied with the directions passed by the Hon'ble Court, no interference is, therefore, called for in the order impugned dated 22.12.2023 (Annexure-9).
(Downloaded on 21/02/2024 at 08:53:01 PM)
[2024:RJ-JD:8401] (16 of 16) [CW-105/2024]
25. This Court finds no force in the writ petition, the same is therefore, dismissed. Stay Petition and misc. application(s), if any, shall stand dismissed.
(DR. NUPUR BHATI),J 282-Reserved-DJ/-
(Downloaded on 21/02/2024 at 08:53:01 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)