Partly allowed

Veena Kachchawa v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC7 Feb 2022CW/961/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court at Jodhpur partly allowed a writ petition concerning a water course dispute. The Court held that due to contradictory reports from Assistant Engineers, the appeal should have been remanded rather than allowing it. Both orders were quashed, and the matter restored to the Executive Engineer for a fresh decision based on a new inspection or report.

What did the court decide?

Both orders dated 05.03.2021 and 27.12.2021 quashed. Application restored to Executive Engineer to take fresh decision within two weeks based on inspection or new report.

Veena Kachchawa Vs State of Rajasthan — Writ and Judicial Review | Rajasthan HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 961/2022

¶3

Veena Kachchawa W/o Sh. Keshavchand, Aged About 48 Years, Ward No. 19, Kashtkar Chak 24 PS, Tehsil Raisinghnagar, District Sri Ganganagar (Raj.) Through Power Of Attorney Holder Jaswant Singh S/o Sh. Sadhu Singh, Aged About 72 Years, R/o Chak 24 PS, Tehsil Raisinghnagar, District Sri Ganganagar (Raj.).

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of Rajasthan, Through The Executive Engineer, Water Resources, Irrigation Circle, Raisinghnagar, Dist. Sri Ganganagar.

¶7

Superintending Engineer, Water Resources Department, Circle Sri Ganganagar, Dist. Sri Ganganagar.

¶8

Ratan Singh S/o Sh. Hari Singh, Chak 24 PS, Tehsil Raisinghnagar, District Sri Ganganagar (Raj.).

¶9

Jeet Singh S/o Amar Singh, Chak 24 PS, Tehsil Raisinghnagar, District Sri Ganganagar (Raj.).

¶10

Jogendra Singh S/o Sh. Mehar Singh, Chak 24 PS, Tehsil Raisinghnagar, District Sri Ganganagar (Raj.).

¶11

Balbeer Singh S/o Sh. Jogendra Singh, Chak 24 PS, Tehsil Raisinghnagar, District Sri Ganganagar (Raj.). ----Respondents

¶12

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. V.R. Choudharythrough V.C.
For Respondent(s)	: Ms. Abhilash Bora through V.C.
	Mr. S.R. Godara through V.C.

¶13

JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

¶14

Order

¶15

07/02/2022

¶16

The petitioner moved an application for change of Kutari Khala (diagonal water course), which was meant for supply of water in Murabba No.14 of Chak 24 PS, Tehsil Raisinghnagar.

¶17

(2 of 3)

¶18

[CW-961/2022]

¶19

Pursuant to petitioner’s request and on the basis of report of Junior Engineer, the Executive Engineer passed an order dated 05.03.2021 and ordered that the water course be provided through kila Nos.5-4-3-2-1.

¶20

Against the order aforesaid, the respondents preferred an appeal before the Superintending Engineer, who vide his order dated 27.12.2021 set aside the order passed by the Executive Engineer, while observing that there were two separate reports given by two Assistant Engineers and both of them had given contradictory reports.

¶21

Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that if the Superintending Engineer was of the view that the order passed by the Executive Engineer was contrary on technical grounds because of two contradictory reports of Assistant Engineers, then he ought to have remanded the matter back to the Executive Engineer instead of simply quashing the order.

¶22

Mr. S.R. Godara, learned counsel for the respondent supported the order passed by the Superintending Engineer and submitted that the order passed by the Superintending Engineer is in conformity with the report submitted by the Assistant Engineers.

¶23

Ms. Abhilasha Bora, learned counsel for the State also supported the order passed by the Superintending Engineer. 7. Having gone through the reports and after considering the submissions made by the rival counsel, this Court is of the opinion that if the Superintending Engineer was of the view that the order passed by the Executive Engineer on 05.03.2021 was not proper, as there were two contrary reports of the Assistant Engineers, then, he ought to have remanded the matter to the Executive

¶24

(3 of 3)

¶25

[CW-961/2022]

¶26

Engineer to take fresh decision instead of simply allowing the appeal.

¶27

In view of the aforesaid, the writ petition stands partly allowed; both the orders dated 05.03.2021 and 27.12.2021 are hereby quashed. Petitioner’s application before the Executive Engineer is restored. The Executive Engineer shall either inspect the site himself and examine technical aspect or depute an Assistant Engineer (except the two Assistant Engineer, who have earlier submitted their reports) and on the basis of such report, take a decision in accordance with law, while keeping in mind the technical aspect and interest of both the parties.

¶28

Necessary order be passed expeditiously, as early as possible, preferably within a period of two weeks from today. 10. Stay petition also stands disposed of accordingly.

¶29

(DINESH MEHTA),J

¶30

47-Ramesh/-

Veena Kachchawa v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Veena Kachchawa v. State of Rajasthan

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

Sanjeevani Vyas Health and Education Society Vs State of Rajasthan

Bhanwar Lal Paliwal Vs the Union of India

Sanjeevani Vyas Health and Education Society Vs State of Rajasthan

Madhu Singh Vs the Sub Divisional Officer, Railmagara

Anu Deora Vs State of Rajasthan

Berisal Singh Vs State of Rajasthan