Dismissed

Smt. Santosh Kanwar v. State of Raj. and Ors.

Rajasthan HC1 Oct 2014CW/1424/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a PIL regarding water flow obstruction by a canal bridge, the High Court dismissed the petition after reviewing affidavits and photographs. The Court found no current water flow since 2007 and confirmed the bridge construction restored the canal's integrity.

What did the court decide?

Prayers in the writ petition have become infructuous and the writ petition is dismissed.

Smt. Santosh Kanwar Vs State of Raj. and Ors. — Writ and Judicial Review | Rajasthan HC (2014)

¶1

¶2

D.B. Civil Writ Petition (PIL) No.1424/2013 Smt.Santosh Kanwar V/s State of Rajasthan & ors.

¶3

1.10.2014

¶4

HON’BLE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SUNIL AMBWANI HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI

¶5

Mr.Harish Mathur for the petitioner.

¶6

Mr.Ramit Mehta Ms.Suman Porwal

¶7

)

¶8

)for the respondents.

¶9

We have heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶10

On 23.9.2014, we passed the following order:-

¶11

“It is stated by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent company M/s Jindal Saw Ltd. that the only grievance raised in this writ petition filed in public interest by the villagers that the company has closed the canal for temporary transportation of the minerals, which has stopped the flow of water.

¶12

In the reply filed by the respondents, it is stated that no damage has been caused to the canal. A temporary road was constructed with the permission of the department. The respondent company states that the canal has since been constructed after the drawings were approved and requisite permission was obtained.

¶13

List on 30.9.2014 so as to enable the respondent company to file appropriate affidavit along with photographs in proof of construction of the bridge. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner will also file a rejoinder to the reply given by the respondents.”

¶14

¶15

An additional affidavit has been filed today by the respondents no.3 to 5 annexing therewith the photographs of the site and the bridge constructed over the canal. The respondents have also annexed the letter dated 28.3.2013 of the Executive Engineer, Water Resources, Division-II, Bhilwara informing the respondent-Company that last time the water was released in the subject canal for irrigation on 21.2.2007.

¶16

We are satisfied from the additional affidavit filed by the respondents no.3 to 5 that there had been no flow of water in the irrigation canal since the year 2007 and in any case, now after a bridge has been constructed, there will be no possibility of obstructing the flow of water in the canal. In view of these latest developments, the prayers in the writ petition have become infructuous. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.

¶17

(VIJAY BISHNOI), J. (SUNIL AMBWANI),Actg.CJ.

¶18

Parmar

Smt. Santosh Kanwar v. State of Raj. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Santosh Kanwar v. State of Raj. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Municipal Council, Pali Vs Roshan Lal

Municipal Council Pali Vs Raja Ram and Anr.

Municipal Council, Pali Vs Kewal Chand

Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat,Anoopgarh Vs Indu. Trib. and Labour Court, Sgnr andORS

Patasi Devi Vs Smt. Gomati Devi and Ors.

Yamlay Khan and Ors. Vs State and Ors.