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
[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,
[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.
[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,
[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."
[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:-
[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-
[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
[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
[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
[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
[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
[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.
[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
[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).
[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/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
