Disposed

Jagdeo Singh and Ors. v. State and Ors.

Rajasthan HC3 Mar 2008CW/4838/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged an order by an Executive Engineer. The Court allowed the petitioners liberty to file an appeal before the Superintending Engineer against the impugned order, noting the earlier appeal was in personal capacity.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to file an appeal before the Superintending Engineer, Water Resources Circle, Hanumangarh within fifteen days; stay order remains in force till the appeal is filed.

Jagdeo Singh and Ors. Vs State and Ors. — Writ and Judicial Review | Rajasthan HC (2008)

¶1

¶2

S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4838/2007 (Jagdeo Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.)

¶3

Date of order :: 03.03.2008

¶4

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS

¶5

Mr.Sudheer Sharma, for the petitioners. Mr.B.S. Sandhu ] Mr.G.R. Goyal ] for the respondents.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶7

In this writ petition, petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 14.02.2007 Annexure-5 which is passed by respondent No.1 - Executive Engineer.

¶8

The contention of the petitioners is that the said order dated 14.02.2007 was challenged by way of filing an appeal by as many as 9 persons before the Superintending Engineer, Irrigation Circle, Hanumangarh in the representatives capacity and the said appeal was dismissed vide order dated 09.05.2007 by the Superintending Engineer, Irrigation Circle, Hanumangarh. The said order dated 09.05.2007 was challenged by way of filing writ petition before this Court by ten persons which was registered as S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.30652007. This Court vide order dated 30.05.2007 passed an order which

¶9

¶10

reads as under:-

¶11

“......... The petitioner may appear before the Executive Engineer (Commissioner) on 04.06.2007 to find out the expenditure, and shall deposit the amount within one week.

¶12

The expenses of the Commissioner shall be paid by the petitioners in advance.

¶13

After making payment of the Commissioner's expenses, the Commissioner may inspect the site within a period of two weeks and submit a report to this Court.

¶14

The matter be listed in the Court on 02.07.2007.

¶15

Till then status quo shall be maintained.”

¶16

Later on the said writ petition was listed before this Court on 17.07.2007 but due to non-compliance of the order dated 30.05.2007 the same was dismissed.

¶17

Now, the petitioners have preferred this writ petition on the ground that the earlier proceedings were initiated by the representatives of the area and for non-compliance of the order passed by this Court the writ petition was dismissed, therefore, still they can raise voice against the order dated 14.02.2007 passed by the Executive Engineer.

¶18

Learned counsel for the respondents vehemently argued that the said writ petition was dismissed on the ground that the compromise has arrived at between the parties, so also, for non-compliance of the order dated 30.05.2007. Therefore,

¶19

¶20

petitioners cannot challenge the same controversy before this Court which was already challenged by ten persons of the area concerned.

¶21

Upon perusal of the order passed by the Superintending Engineer dated 09.05.2007, it is obvious that the said appeal was not filed in representatives capacity but it was in personal capacity, therefore, still petitioners, if aggrieved by the order dated 134.02.2007 can raise their voice by way of filing an appeal before the Superintending Engineer.

¶22

In these circumstances, I deem it just and proper to grant liberty to the petitioners to file an appeal before Superintending Engineer, Water Resources Circle, Hanumangarh against the order passed by the Executive Engineer, Hanumangarh dated 14.02.2007. The appeal may be filed within a period of fifteen days from the date of certified copy of this order and till filing of the appeal the stay order granted by this Court shall remain in force. The Superintending Engineer may decide the appeal so filed by the petitioners upon merits of the case.

¶23

With these observation/direction, the writ petition is

¶24

disposed of.

¶25

(GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS), J.

¶26

A.K. Chouhan/-

Jagdeo Singh and Ors. v. State and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jagdeo Singh and Ors. v. State and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mahesh Kumar Maheshwari Vs State and Ors.

Rajendra Singh Meena Vs State and Ors.

Akhilesh Birla Vs State and Ors.

Rughnath Singh and Ors. Vs State and Ors.

Sher Mohammed and Ors. Vs State and Ors.

Gurdev Singh Vs Prescribed Authority and Anr.