Rajiv And Ors vs State Of Haryana And Ors
2022 Latest Caselaw 14591 P&H

LPA-339-2020 (O&M)                      1

104         IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                     CHANDIGARH
                              LPA-339-2020 (O&M)
                              Date of Decision:17.11.2022.
Rajiv and others                                       .....Appellants
                                 Versus
State of Haryana and others                                      ...... Respondents
CORAM:       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH
             HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM AGGARWAL
Present:     Mr. P.K. Ganga, Advocate
             for the applicant-appellants.

             Mr. Deepak Bhardwaj, DAG, Haryana.

                    *****
AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL)

LPA-339-2020

Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment passed by the learned Single

Judge dated 17.02.2020 whereby the writ petition preferred by the appellants has

been dismissed in the light of the fact that the order which was impugned dated

18.01.2019 (Annexure P-5) passed by the District Magistrate, authorizing the

Executive Engineer, Ghaggar Water Services Division, Sirsa as Duty Magistrate to

carry out the removal of the underground unauthorized pipelines installed by the

villagers on Mangala Director Miner had been passed in pursuance to the orders

passed by this Court in CWP No.28054 of 2017 titled as 'Dungar Ram and another

Vs. State of Haryana and another'.

Counsel for the appellants submits that the appellants have no option but

to approach the Court by way of the writ petition challenging the said order as the

removal of the underground pipes which were laid by the appellants had been carried

out without even giving them any notice or opportunity of being heard. When

confronted by this Court as to why the appellants did not approach the Court when

the writ petition was pending especially when the orders impugned had been passed

in pursuance to an order passed by this Court in the writ petition referred to above the

counsel very fairly states that an application for impleadment had been moved by the

1 of 2

appellants being CM no. 2635-2636-CWP-2019 in CWP-28054-2017, wherein the

said applications were not accepted and were rather permitted to be withdrawn with

costs vide order dated 28.02.2019 (Annexure P-7). He contends that this withdrawal

was based upon the request which was made by the counsel to the Court for liberty to

challenge the said order or avail of the remedy in accordance with law. This

contention of the learned counsel for the appellants cannot be accepted as the orders

passed by this Court do not mention such a thing. Even the prayer in this regard on

behalf of the counsel for the appellants is not mentioned in the order what to say of

any permission having been granted.

In the light of the dismissal of the application for being impleaded as a

party and for permitting them to use the underground pipelines, the prayer as made in

the present appeal cannot be accepted. The order passed by the learned Single Judge

being in accordance with law do not call for any interference by this Court in the

present appeal.

The appeal being devoid of merit, therefore, stands dismissed.

CM-900-LPA-2020

In the light of the dismissal of the present appeal stay application stands

disposed of as infructuous.

                                         (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH)
                                                  JUDGE



17.11.2022                                       ( VIKRAM AGGARWAL)
rekha sharma                                            JUDGE

               Whether speaking/reasoned          :     Yes/No.
               Whether reportable                 :    Yes/No.




                                        2 of 2